North Pole Movement

I submit that our very long range weather/temperature predictions/models can not be accurate because weather is too complicated for us to fully grasp yet.
For example- this is new. Doubt any new info gathered has made it to weather models...So what else don't we know (we don't know until someone discovers it).
Invisible plasma tubes drifting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymZEOihlIdU

Can we admit, KJ, that important data has been deliberately altered or ignored- in order to sway peoples/governments opinions that Man is causing weather changes.

 

"Cracks appear in the climate change deniers’ defenses"
"Even oil companies, we can now say, believe climate change is real — and admit it’s something they are causing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cracks-appear-in-the-climate-change-deniers-defenses/2015/06/15/8b0e42b4-137a-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

"Climate change represents a real threat to humanity and to our planet. And by burning fossil fuels, human beings are accelerating changes in our climate. That's not just the opinion of environmental groups or the EPA. It's the view of the world's largest oil companies."

http://www.clearpath.org/en/why-clean-energy/leaders-see-risks/oil-companies-climate-action-needed.html

"Ten oil and gas CEOs made a pledge today (Oct. 16) to do more to tackle climate change."

"The group includes the UK’s BG Group and BP, Italy’s Eni, Pemex of Mexico, India’s Reliance Industries, Repsol of Spain, Royal Dutch Shell, Norway’s Statoil, Total of France and Saudi Aramco."


http://qz.com/526073/there-is-one-glaring-absence-from-a-pledge-by-oil-companies-to-help-limit-climate-change/

 

El Nino is coming this winter. Supposed to get real cold and provide for above normal snowfall in the mountain west of the US. That'll come in handy when I'm in Park City, Utah on the annual ski vacation.

 

Tackle climate change. Laughable.
Many thousands of years ago, the place am writing from was under several hundred feet of ice. The dinosaurs died off because of climate change.
The previous alarmist predictions said a large portion of coast would be under water, and the world would be completely F***** by 2012...
Coastlines change all the time (Earth years)...
None of their hysterical predictions have come true.
Yes the climate is changing. But the KEY words were: MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING...Now it is "climate change".
We are being taxed/charged for something that will not change no matter how many billions are spent (on what).
The hockey stick graph has been shown to be a lie, facts and temperatures skewed in order to present a fallacious view to taxpayers.

Why are oil companies talking about CC? Because they are being taxed over something that cannot be changed. So where is all the money collected going to?

Going to summon GS.
Green Slime, Green Slime, Green Slime (looking into a mirror).
GS, how do you feel about taxing something we have no control over or ability to fix?

 

And don't forget Al Gore. He's making a fortune off his carbon credit sales. I hear that they make great stocking stuffers in liberalville's "Holiday" stockings.

 

View attachment 23110

 

I think you obviously pay far too little in tax. You definitely need to being paying more.

There is no way, that you are taxed sufficiently to pay for any environmental damage caused. Not as long as the money is used to fund other things.

Of course, infrastructure in our cities that brings us clean water has been properly maintained since our cities in the Western world were´built. For instance cancer-causing arsenic is currently present in the drinking water of 22 million Americans at average levels of 5 ppb, well below a new EPA standard for arsenic of 10 ppb that went into effect in 2006. Yet scientists now know that there is no safe level of arsenic in drinking water. (The EPA found that a standard of 3 ppb would have been feasible, but industry lobbying and concerns over treatment costs prevailed over public safety.)

Never mind global warming. That doesn't even enter into the equation. I'm only considering the cost of repairing the damage caused by air, soil, and water pollution, and destruction of animal and plant habitats. To say nothing of all the health effects.

"Public health problems caused by environmental contamination and emerging infectious diseases are a growing concern worldwide. These public health threats are affected by the relationship between people and the physical, chemical, and biological nature of our natural environments. Population growth and the associated pressures of development are increasing the difficulties associated with sustaining effective public health practices and policies. Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, water contamination, airborne contaminants, bioaccumulative contaminants in the food chain, and environmental threats to public health the world over require marshalling of all our scientific knowledge and know-how to develop new solutions. Understanding environmental and ecological health is a prerequisite to protecting public health."
http://health.usgs.gov/

But, as long as the rich are getting richer, it couldn't possibly be an issue, that we are releasing hundreds of new chemical substances that are untested for long term effects on humans or other organisms. Such as flame retardents. It takes far too long to ascertain these things with certainity, and who wants to wait when there is money to be made?

Of course, by then a new technical solution to the problem we didn't have before the introduction of the chemical will present itself, postponing an apocalypse, and the world will be rosy. For a while.

Don't worry, your taxes are being well spent on other things. Ignore the Environment. This isn't the environment you are looking for.

Whatever. Hopefully, the Zombie Apocalypse occurs soon enough.

 

Doh...back in yer bottle genie...Wanted to conjure the coherent slime monster.

Where are all the taxes being collected going to...Dykes, windmills, storm walls- where is the money going?

Everyone knows Chinese don't want to pay full price... Why would China build billions worth of sand island bases, if they will be swamped by rising sea water.

 

You know where the money is going.

Healthcare, pensions, defence, education, infrastructure maintenance, maintenance of various codes & standards, police, firemen, municipal and government employees everywhere. None of which are getting cheaper.

"Everyone knows...." nope. It's hardly a cost of billions to dyke some sand onto an atoll. Considering NASA estimates Sea level rising over the past 23 years at 8 cm, that the IPCC consensus is between 30 cm and 1 m by the end of this century, these structures they have built aren't going to be swamped any time soon. Looking at the pictures, it seems the Chinese have built up the islands well over a meter above sea level, and then added sea walls around to prevent stormsurge.



Considering modern aircraft carriers cost more, and stick around for less time, probably a smart investment by the Chinese.

 

One good Typhoon or Tsunami and they are in trouble though.

 

I keep my fingers crossed...

 

The water in those seas is pretty shallow.

Re South China Seas:

Four tsunami have affected Hong Kong in the past half century but none have generated a tidal surge of more than half a metre, according to the Hong Kong Observatory, and none would be strong enough to trigger a tsunami warning. In 1952, an earthquake in Kamchatka generated a 15cm tsunami in Hong Kong, while two earthquakes in Chile in 1960 and 1985, and a 1988 earthquake in Luzon measuring 5.4 on the Richter scale generated tsunami of up to 30cm high.

An estimated 40,000 people died as a result of the tsunami in 1782, according to the US National Geophysical Data Centre, more than any tsunami in history until the events of December 26 2004.

This paper discusses potential 3 meter high waves... I'll hazard a guess that the facility pictured above can withstand that. The Paracels in that scenario are exposed to 8m high waves. But this is absolutely worst case.

 

As previously: the alarmists forecasts have not come anywhere near the drama they claimed would occurr to date... So their science was/is wrong.

Am ok with taxation. Taxed to the nuts here. My issue is that taxes collected may not be staying in Canada, the taxes are hidden, and turds like Gore and his ilk somehow make money off it.
Canada gives more aid per capita than a great majority of countries. ..Just want the alarmists/lefties to keep their hands out of my pockets, and admit it is a tax grab.
Stop making up false numbers/stories to try and prove man has altered and can fix the weather. We cannot.
A more simple idea would be to kick KSA/OPEC in the arse, tax/price oil accordingly.
If oil causes so many problems, why is it being sold at 45/barrel ( don't want to hear any "keeps ISIS from profiting" bs- they already seem to be very well funded ).

Oil/coal and GW crap seem to be inexorably linked. OPEC nations don't give a fig about humanitarianism or the globe/environment. Just akbar and dollars in order to fund more akbar.

That is my real take on MMGW lie.

 

My biggest problem with the alarmists is that they are getting in the way of real science on the issue. There has never been a real questoin of whether or not climates change it's the nature of the beast. Over the interval in question it's also pretty clear that there has been a warming trend. That human activities would have some impact on this is also hardly debateable. The ozone hole and its recovery after the chlorofluorocarbon ban is fairly conslusive in that regard and it's not the only such event. What is at question is how much human activitiy is to blame and even to some extent what activities are driving the change in what directions. The alarmist have focused on CO2 and the assumption that human activity is driving the change. That would be bad enough but they have gone out of their way to prevent research that counters their preceptions or prevent the publication of said research if it actually was acomplished. IMO it's better to look at the effect of human activities on the ecosphere as a whole and figure out the best way of limiting or hopefully stopping its deteriation and optimally improving it.

An example of what the narrow focus may be causing us to ignore is the possible impact of the CFC ban I mentioned above. My understanding is that the CFCs in addition to affecting the Ozone layer were also potent greenhouse gasses with a long half life in the atmosphere. It's been noted earlier in this thread that the last decade or so the global warming has tapered off or stopped (attemtps to redefine how the global temperature is calcualted asside). Could the two events be related? Has anyone looked at it? It would seem a natural study to make but the community is too tide up in the CO2 debate. Of course there are other things as well like indications that the amount of energy from the sun may have increased as well. Then there's the whole question of whether or not it makes sense to say one cause drives a complex chaotic system.

 

Firstly, most alarmism is media driven; it sells. Most scientists use much more cautious language.

Secondly, and again, it's never about the weather. It's about the climate.

Lastly, you don't seem to understand OPEC nations, so why should you expect any more from them?

 

Well weather and climate have a pretty strong correlation. Local weather and global climate may be a bit problematic though or at least the correlation isn't always intuitive.

 

And how many do you have?

 

Am more of a speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil- type.

 

Obviously so is our dear friend Karjala. I think that he is just ashamed to say how many carbon credits he already has.

 

The British dictionary

Weather: the day-to-day meteorological conditions, esp temperature,cloudiness, and rainfall, affecting a specific place

Climate: the long-term prevalent weather conditions of an area, determined by latitude, position relative to oceans or continents, altitude, etc

Long term, as measured in decades, or more. It is a significant difference in scale. Unique or near unique weather effects disappear. It is the only scale on which long term Climatic trends can be seen, because of the noise of the variation.

Commenting on the climate, because of one season of weather in a single locality, is like forming an opinion on a song based on hearing one note from a single instrument.

And now....

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540414