[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your opinion is still completely wrong, according to the thing we call 'science'.

Since you like 'science' so much, you should consider all of it, not just the parts that you agree with.

During the last million or so years, our planet has gone though some extreme climate cycles. None of those man-made.

Non sequitur

[BRAH]

Meanwhile At The Paris Climate Conference "My Friends, We Will Call It Climate Change!"

[martin14]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... tal-waste/


There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

$1:

1.

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs…

6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted

Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.

NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicised attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of the Climategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.

7. Winter Is Coming

Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.

8. CO2 is greening the planet

The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.

9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.

Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.

10. People are losing interest in global warming.

A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat, b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threats

11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist

This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.” $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.

Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/twelve-reasons-paris-climate-talks-total-waste/


There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

Brietbart.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

In Arkansas, a growing population of 'climate change refugees'

Valentino Keimbar, a native of the Marshall Islands, moved 6,000 miles away from his home in the Pacific Ocean last year to Springdale, Arkansas because of climate change.

Located between Hawaii and Australia, the Marshall Islands are made up of 29 atolls and five islands with a population of about 70,000, all of whom live about six feet above sea level.

And another 10,000 Marshallese live in northwest Arkansas. The government of the Marshall Islands even has an official consular office in Springdale.

“Arkansas is the land of opportunity,” Josen Kaious, from the Marshall Islands town of Laura, told the Associated Press.

Because this Pacific island nation is so small, the Marshallese population in Arkansas attribute their Springdale settlement to one man, John Moody, who moved to the US in 1979 after the first wave of flooding. Moody’s family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas, eventually causing a steady flow of extended friends and family migrating to Springdale.

One migrant named Roselinta told CNN that she likes Arkansas because it is far away from the ocean, meaning it is safe.

“Probably in 10 to 20 years from now, we’re all going to move,” Keimbar told the Associated Press.

But the Marshall Islands is not the only country to witness thousands of climate migrants. The Maldives in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, and the island of Tuvalu south of the Marshall Islands are also at risk.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... e-refugees

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But the Marshall Islands

You mean the one that just finished its' 11th international airport ?

Oh yeah, they REALLY care about global warming, keeping all those tourists away from
damaging the ecosystem.


Here, have some

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But the Marshall Islands

You mean the one that just finished its' 11th international airport ?

Oh yeah, they REALLY care about global warming, keeping all those tourists away from
damaging the ecosystem.

Here, have some

Do you have a link on that? I can find no information on "Marshall Islands 11th international airport".

However, it doesn't change that some of the islands in the atoll are slowly being submerged. People are not aquatic, so they have to move.

[DrCaleb]

From what I can tell, the Marshall Islands only has a single International Airport, and it was built in the early 1970's by the US military.

[martin14]

HA !

Sorry, I read Maldives, my mistake.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-15040


11 airports, 800,000 tourists.

If they are so worried about global warming, hows they about they cut their tourism by 10%.

Then I would be impressed. Just a guess, they won't do it.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

HA !

Sorry, I read Maldives, my mistake.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-15040


11 airports, 800,000 tourists.

If they are so worried about global warming, hows they about they cut their tourism by 10%.

Then I would be impressed. Just a guess, they won't do it.

No worries man. You had me confused.

No, I don't think the Maldives will. It's a classic case of "they are doing nothing, why should I?"

Their income depends on tourism, but tourism will eventually generate so much greenhouse gas that the islands will be under water.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nge-action