COP26 - the Glasgow Climate Summit

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wyb2

In short, mat jam is just shamelessly trolling, best to just starve him out.

I've come to understand this is not only the best answer to these folks, but the only answer. So just ignore them. Or if you can't do that, put them on your ignore list.

They're only here to get a rise. A response is the oxygen they need, so don't give it to them.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.
From wikipedia!
Hardly a scientific site.

Not climate change denial at all. Wiki may have it wrong too I guess. Does not surprise me.

The site is generally skeptical that C02 from human activity is the overarching driving force for recent (post 1975 when the world was getting colder) temperature change and sea level rise.

Plus the site offers some much needed technical feedback to the IPC climate models, which predict the future temperatures.

https://www.aier.org/article/climate...-than-nothing/

I maintain that the source code for the climate models be made public.

There are a lot of scientists on that site, and offer opinions and facts for and against.

[Tetepare]

80 pages of good feelings, no results.

Chinas carbon is greater than all other counties combined. That’s the problem.

Stop buying Chinese stuff. Or Malaysian, same thing. Do your part. Lean on your politicians. Or is a new flat screen more important? Chinese solar panels are a net loss, FYI.

I don’t care if global warming is 100% natural or 100% man. Dumping crap in the atmosphere and seas has been proven to be detrimental.

Stop China first. Then worry about USA, then later Kiribati. This is triage priority. Does no good to fix the scratch when the femural is bleeding out. Might feel good, but rainbows don’t fix anything.

[mat jam]

You need wiki or snopes to tell you what to think?

And Jack, do you really expect us to believe you made a fool of scientists on wuwt?

You alarmists are the spawn of googles access to cheap info for the gullible that need to he told what to think. And then try to force it on everyone else. The same gang screaming on a number of topics all without any background on the topics or the intellectual capacity to determine whether it is plausible. This site has the lowest level of discussions of any forum simply because rather than examining each and every message for accuracy, you alarmists ignore the ones that are too revealing and attack on the trivial with reams of useless verbage that really says nothing much at all. And importantly, you never include the most credible and distinguished people in their fields. All the while screaming its about the scinece and saying catch phrases to appear in the know. And most importantly, your educational and professional backgrounds are very lacking in intellectual credibility. Tradesman that never finished high school. Reporters with only high school or two year college diplomas... That is not to say formal education is a pre-requisite for knowledge or intellect but it is evidently not present among you alarmists. There are many knowledgeable members here who wisely rarely post due to you guys. Congrats on the school yard antics where your mental capacities remain. And using the troll tag, jesus...

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by mat jam

You need wiki or snopes to tell you what to think?

And Jack, do you really expect us to believe you made a fool of scientists on wuwt?

You alarmists are the spawn of googles access to cheap info for the gullible that need to he told what to think. And then try to force it on everyone else. The same gang screaming on a number of topics all without any background on the topics or the intellectual capacity to determine whether it is plausible. This site has the lowest level of discussions of any forum simply because rather than examining each and every message for accuracy, you alarmists ignore the ones that are too revealing and attack on the trivial with reams of useless verbage that really says nothing much at all. And importantly, you never include the most credible and distinguished people in their fields. All the while screaming its about the scinece and saying catch phrases to appear in the know. And most importantly, your educational and professional backgrounds are very lacking in intellectual credibility. Tradesman that never finished high school. Reporters with only high school or two year college diplomas... That is not to say formal education is a pre-requisite for knowledge or intellect but it is evidently not present among you alarmists. There are many knowledgeable members here who wisely rarely post due to you guys. Congrats on the school yard antics where your mental capacities remain. And using the troll tag, jesus...

Good to see that you have managed to embrace the be nice rule, and to demonstrate your superior education, geologist wasn't it? Mind you I once knew an excavator operator who described himself as a geologist.
I for one have to place this rant in the same category as all your other misinformed posts quoting alarmist and conspiracy theorists.

[mat jam]

Thanks for proving my points there Bob! And touche on the be nice rules!! Try engineering faculty but also studied the subjects at hand!!!

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by mat jam

Thanks for proving my points there Bob! And touche on the be nice rules!! Try engineering faculty but also studied the subjects at hand!!!

You're most welcome, and now do you have any other offerings, perhaps sailing related or do you only do conspiracy and denialist threads?????

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by mat jam

Prof from U of Melbourne and importantly a geologist talking at a function in the UK. There is a reason geologists never get invited to climate talks as they would reveal too many inconvenient truths

https://bitchute.com/video/y4Ordy4NEgp9/

I take it none of you have a background in this like i do? Any geologists here? And stop talking science cause there is none here except religious alarmist nonsense. The same alarmists on a number of threads all screaming their nonsense based on being ignorant without any background on the subjects.

Background in geology?

Originally Posted by mat jam

Thanks for showing us you know nothing about the topic. I suggest you do more research about volcanoes, particularly underwater ones.

More implied geological expertise.

Originally Posted by mat jam

That is not research. There is no relevant info there. The least you can do since you are so dogmatic on this topic is to actually do proper research that is scientific in nature with factual data rather than do google searches to find useless banter that only supports your position.

What is it with you alarmists and your - lets find something that kinda says the right things and sorta supports my point but doesn't really say much about anything!

And try and avoid biased research!

Perhaps you would do well to embrace this philosophy as well.

Originally Posted by mat jam

Thanks for proving my points there Bob! And touche on the be nice rules!! Try engineering faculty but also studied the subjects at hand!!!

And now we are an engineer that happens to have studied other topics as well.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by wyb2

Present day (it was created in 2016) is clearly labeled. You can cover up the projections with tour thumb if you want to see it without them considering they take up 0.3% of the graphic. The point is pretty clear without them.

If you remove


We're 1/3rd of a degree higher than we were a handful of thousands of years ago.

And yet...
2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S.

Either modern humans are a bunch of pansies or our ancestors were much more resilient than we thought.

[GordMay]

A report [1], from Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Jerry V. DeMarco, tabled November 25/21, in the House of Commons, documents that 3 decades of federal government commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have yielded an increase of more than 20% in emissions since 1990. The report, which is not an audit, documents Canada’s actions to address climate change and sets out lessons learned.

“Canada was once a leader in the fight against climate change. However, after a series of missed opportunities, it has become the worst performer of all Group of G7 nations since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change was adopted in 2015”, said Mr. DeMarco. “We can’t continue to go from failure to failure; we need action and results, not just more targets and plans.”

At the heart of this report are 8 lessons learned from Canada’s action and inaction on climate change. The first is that stronger leadership and coordination are needed to drive progress on climate change. Other lessons focus on the need to reduce dependence on high-emission industries, learning to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, raising public awareness and investing in a climate-resilient future.

As demonstrated by the COVID 19 pandemic, concerted government action can avert the worst of a crisis. “Like pandemics, climate change is a global crisis, one which experts have been raising the alarm about for decades”, added Mr. DeMarco. “Both carry risks to human health and the economy, and both require whole-of-society responses to protect present and future generations.”

[1] Report 5 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada
"Lessons Learned from Canada’s Record on Climate Change"
➥ https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/d...02111_05_e.pdf

The 2021 Fall Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development were tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday, 25 November 2021.
Reports ➥ https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/E...lp_e_1455.html

News Media Reporting:
CBC ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/env...lure-1.6262523
Global News ➥ https://globalnews.ca/video/8402865/...7-nations/amp/
Globe & Mail ➥ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...nts-emissions/
National Post ➥ https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ure-to-failure

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The ground under the feet of outright CC deniers has been steadily crumbling away, and there's very little credibility in that position now. Denial and opposition have been moving to higher ground (climate has always changed, not certain how much is human, warming is good, can't afford to mitigate, we'll adapt, etc).

And, faced with growing acknowledgment of CC, those whose denial was politically triangulated are now experiencing 11th-hour 'green' conversions, and using their new green cloaks to further justify their perennial demonization of immigration.

Such fine people...

Climate HAS always changed.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else is certain how much of current change is caused by humans.

I live in Maine, and here warming means a longer sailing season, a longer growing season, less snow to shovel, lower heating bills. I understand that those who live in warmer climates have a different perspective on warming but it would be nice if they at least attempted to be less dismissive of my perspective.

Mitigation of the amount of CO2 we emit isn’t going to lower atmospheric CO2 levels or the effects current CO2 levels have for at least hundreds of years. You and I are relatively rich and can afford to mitigate our CO2 emissions but there are billions (with a b!) of people who literally cannot afford to mitigate at all, and even if they all did, atmospheric CO2 would not subside during our lifetimes.

We have no choice but to adapt. That’s just a simple fact and has nothing to do with any political triangulation, whatever that term means.

When you attempt to demonize the supposedly cold hearted people who are in favor of walls on borders and are opposed to immigration, you conveniently leave out the word “illegal.” Throughout all of history, countries have controlled their borders and most countries in the world still do. You are allowed to immigrate into most countries under certain conditions but the country you hope to move to has the right to know who you are and whether your intent is to blend into and contribute to their society or do you intend to just become a burden on them. Walls aren’t intended to stop immigration, but instead are merely a way of forcing prospective immigrants to pass through a gate in that wall so those already living in that country can know who’s joining them and keep out undesirables who have a record of committing crimes or bringing in illegal substances. Because of the great economic opportunity our capitalist system has created, our country has become a huge magnet for people from all over the world wanting to migrate here. I’m proud of that fact and feel like we should never forget that America was built by immigrants, LEGAL immigrants!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Climate HAS always changed.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else is certain how much of current change is caused by humans.

Actually we do know that current climate change is caused by human activities.

Natural forcings, Milankovitch and solar cycles would have us cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

Analysis of satellite data gives us a 5 sigma confidence that the current warming is caused by human activity.

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1647443

We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2020GL091585

Some more:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Need more?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We're 1/3rd of a degree higher than we were a handful of thousands of years ago.

We are warmer than we have been in 12,000 years and possibly 120,000 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

And we are a few generations away from the same conditions that led to the PETM.

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) is a global greenhouse warming event that happened 56 million years ago, causing extinction in the world's oceans and accelerated evolution on the continents. It was caused by release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. When we compare the rate of release of greenhouse gases today to the rate of accumulation during the PETM, we must compare the rates on a common time scale. Projection of modern rates to a PETM time scale is tightly constrained and shows that we are now emitting carbon some 9–10 times faster than during the PETM. If the present trend of increasing carbon emissions continues, we may see PETM-magnitude extinction and accelerated evolution in as few as 140 years or about five human generations.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018PA003379

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I live in Maine, and here warming means a longer sailing season, a longer growing season, less snow to shovel, lower heating bills. I understand that those who live in warmer climates have a different perspective on warming but it would be nice if they at least attempted to be less dismissive of my perspective.

That's what it means to YOU, in MAINE, in the present. Kind of a narrow perspective on a global, long-term issue, no?

You and I are relatively rich and can afford to mitigate our CO2 emissions but there are billions (with a b!) of people who literally cannot afford to mitigate at all, and even if they all did, atmospheric CO2 would not subside during our lifetimes.

We have no choice but to adapt. That’s just a simple fact and has nothing to do with any political triangulation, whatever that term means.

As you just observed, you and I can buy our way out of any future discomfort. You're asking THEM - those who can't buy their way out like we can - to adapt. And without our help (technological or otherwise), or even moderating our overconsumption to let the same amount of energy benefit more people.

When you attempt to demonize the supposedly cold hearted people who are in favor of walls on borders and are opposed to immigration, you conveniently leave out the word “illegal.”

(It's right to demonize those who rail against illegal immigrants for political purposes, but never charge or prosecute any of the US businesses and people that happily employ them.)

Neither I nor the article 'conveniently' left that word out. Again with the narrow (in this case US-centric) perspective; the article was more from the EU perspective. But you clearly confirm the main thrust of the article: you can graft a 'green' excuse onto the anti-immigration position, and right-wingers' ears prick up.

[wyb2]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you remove


We're 1/3rd of a degree higher than we were a handful of thousands of years ago.

And yet...
2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S.

Either modern humans are a bunch of pansies or our ancestors were much more resilient than we thought.

Right, and rate of change is irrelevant. A bass boat and a container ship can both turn around, therefore they are equally maneuverable.