By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 01:57 - Nov 7 by LeonWasGod
Jennifer Marohasy is one of a small group of climate sceptics in Australia linked to the Institute of Public Affairs, an organisation heavily sponsored by the oil industry. She's a highly controversial figure over there, appears to be a bit of a maverick selling her services to industries with an interest in the relaxation of environmental controls. The collaborator in her latest paper fraudulently claim membership of a university well after he had left. She's been heavily criticised (rightly) in the past for very selective sampling of data to prove a point and her general understing of physical climatic processes (she's not a climatologist).
Maybe she's right and everyone else is wrong, but I'd look very carefully at anything coming from her.
Absolutley typical, attack the person and not there data. If as you say we shouldn't believe what she says why do you think that the Australian BOM has admitted to what she has found?
-2
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 12:30 - Nov 7 with 1244 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 10:17 - Nov 7 by Highjack
Their data would have been a lot more limited back then, now we have better connectivity, more advanced satellites, more weather stations so nearly every part of the globe can be measured every second of every day.
It is a relatively new science. We've only been able to measure the global temperature accurately for a few short years. The consensus is that the average temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution and the population boom that came later, but how do they know accurately what the average temperature of the earth was in the 1700's?
There will certainly be records of weather in Britain, Europe etc, but how do you work out the global average when most of the worlds temperatures wouldn't have been recorded accurately?
Is it safe science to directly compare the extensive data we have today to the less comprehensive limited information to what we had before the industrial revolution?
Come on stop making excuses, we are talking about 1998 & 1989 and the same Scientists using the same Data. Do you realise that they are actually using a lot less Weather stations they they were?
-1
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 12:32 - Nov 7 with 1242 views
We also have this from Naomi Klein "As Klein concludes, the climate conversation must now focus on radical solutions to cut our carbon emissions by 8-10% every year. A “great transition” places action on climate change within a broader agenda to “liberate ourselves from austerity and reclaim the commons”. Climate change will impact all of our lives so we must work together to promote a new economy that protects the environment."
You won't of course find any of this on the BBC, in the Independent or Guardian.
I've just read that first article, and what the article says the quote says and what the actual quote says is completely different.
The whole 'destroy capitalism' bit is just made up.
This is ridiculous - you can actually read the quote and understand that the straw man the article then sets up is absolutely not what is being said. And yet you believe the straw man?
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:03 - Nov 7 with 1212 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 23:28 - Nov 6 by jack_lord
The recent “pause” in global warming has ended following three years in which temperature records have been successively broken, the Met Office has said.
The idea of a slowing in the rate of warming has been controversial with some arguing it was little more than a statistical blip.
In a statement on its website, the Met Office said it had established that the world’s climate warmed more slowly between 1999 and 2014 than it had done previously, but the last few years had seen a return to the more rapid rate.
You believe it, it is not true, the evidence is there if you would like to see it. I will quote directly from the NASA Annual Summaries.
"The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures." The above time series shows the combined global land and ocean temperature anomalies from 1880 to 1998 with respect to an 1880-1997 base period. The largest anomaly occurred in 1998, making it the warmest year since widespread instrument records began in the late Nineteenth Century. The second warmest year was 1997, and seven of the ten warmest years have occurred in the 1990s.
And now the pièce de résistance
The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). Report - Annual 2016
Climate Monitoring State of the Climate Temp, Precip, and Drought Climate at a Glance Extremes Societal Impacts Snow and Ice Teleconnections GHCN Monthly Monitoring References
State of the Climate ReportsSummary InformationMonthly Climate BriefingsRSS Feed xml rss feed
Report: Year: Month: Global Climate Report « December 2016 Global Climate Report January 2017 » Maps and Time Series Temperature and Precipitation Maps
Annual
Temperature Anomalies Time Series
Annual
Contents of this Section:
Global Temperatures Regional Temperatures Global Precipitation References
2016 Selected Climate Anomalies and Events Map 2016 Global Significant Weather and Climate Events
Global Temperatures
With the contribution of eight consecutive high monthly temperature records set from January to August, and the remainder of the months ranking among their five warmest, 2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.
Twelve Warmest Years (1880—2016)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record (2003, 2006, and 2007 tie as 10th warmest). Rank 1 = Warmest Period of Record: 1880—2016 Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F 1 2016 0.94 1.69 2 2015 0.90 1.62 3 2014 0.74 1.33 4 2010 0.70 1.26 5 2013 0.67 1.21 6 2005 0.66 1.19 7 2009 0.64 1.15 8 1998 0.63 1.13 9 2012 0.62 1.12 10 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10 10 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10 10 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
So when I did basic Arithmetic 57.0 + 1.69 = 58.69, do you agree?
So let me ask you is 58.69 higher or lower than 62.45?
Also please note just how totally incompetent those same Scientists were in 1998 and 1989, they could not even calculate the temperature to within 4 degrees of the correct value. They must have some really extensive training courses since then to ba ble to get it right now. You see the average "Baseline" temperature for the 2016 calulation is 57.00 degrees F, so the new Temperature for 1998 is 57.00 + 1.13 = 58.13 (used to be >62.45 ie 4.31 degrees higher). Voila! 2016 is higher than 1998. Isn't modern Science and Maths just wonderful?
-1
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:14 - Nov 7 with 1205 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 12:08 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
I know. I was going to mention the beef industry when deforestation came up, but I was losing the will to live!
Its all very sad. Glad you knew though. Many dont.
The health risks are unbelievable too. The world health organisation puts processed meat (bacon for example) as a group 1 carcinogenic, alongside plutonium. Red meats are group 2. Huge links to cancer. Dairy is strongly linked to breast cancer. Yet cancer research is sponsored by Danone and the biggest meat supplier in the USA and even on their website have meal plans that include dairy and beef, there is no money in finding a cure, keeping everyone sick and needing medication and healthcare is worth trillions, its all linked. Even woth the pharmaceutical companies - most antibiotics created in this world are consumed by healthy animals. These industries pay to have dairy and meat on the government recommended nutrient chart (that triangle you are shown in school), it isnt actually good for you what so ever, in fact quite the opposite. Not even touching upon the horrifying cruelty in these industries.
Anyway I feel that is a little of piste, but get very angry about these things.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:14 - Nov 7 by E20Jack
Its all very sad. Glad you knew though. Many dont.
The health risks are unbelievable too. The world health organisation puts processed meat (bacon for example) as a group 1 carcinogenic, alongside plutonium. Red meats are group 2. Huge links to cancer. Dairy is strongly linked to breast cancer. Yet cancer research is sponsored by Danone and the biggest meat supplier in the USA and even on their website have meal plans that include dairy and beef, there is no money in finding a cure, keeping everyone sick and needing medication and healthcare is worth trillions, its all linked. Even woth the pharmaceutical companies - most antibiotics created in this world are consumed by healthy animals. These industries pay to have dairy and meat on the government recommended nutrient chart (that triangle you are shown in school), it isnt actually good for you what so ever, in fact quite the opposite. Not even touching upon the horrifying cruelty in these industries.
Anyway I feel that is a little of piste, but get very angry about these things.
I recently watched a really interesting program about the effects of cattle on the environment, Cowspiracy.
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:27 - Nov 7 with 1196 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 16:18 - Nov 4 by Davillin
It is sad to relate, but this thread is jam-packed with hysterical and near-hysterical nonsense taken blindly from a rackful of imitation "scientists," almost all of them having taken "scientific conclusions" blindly from another rackful of dishonest "scientists," and all of them getting the imprimatur from a bunch of double-dumb politicians using it for their personal aggrandizement.
And all of them pooh-poohing the scientists whose work proves the errors of the first batch who can't give up riding the gravy train pulled by "climate change."
The principal problem is that all of the power-wielders in society who are gaining from the scam keep the truth-tellers shut down by indirect but effective punishments of one form or another, such as silently censoring them, causing them to lose one's lucrative position or reputation, and more telling, causing them to lose fat cat government's so-called "grants." And all of the "scientists" are backing all of the other "scientists" whose conclusions support their own.
And the non-scientists among us just bleat far and wide the conclusions of an even more scientifically-challenged media.
Follow the money. It ain't going to the ones who disagree with the money-waving government.
[p.s. A "well-done" to the posters on this thread who have not been taken in.]
Dav.
Why are you more clever than the rest of us?
Why are a minority of scientists funded by big coal and the likes of Rupert Murdoch more clever than about 97% of the scientists who actually study the subject?
What type of arrogance does it take for someone with no scientific knoweldge to think he knows better than everyone else. Him and dad. because they read things in right wing blogs?
2
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 14:07 - Nov 7 with 1171 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 12:32 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
I've just read that first article, and what the article says the quote says and what the actual quote says is completely different.
The whole 'destroy capitalism' bit is just made up.
This is ridiculous - you can actually read the quote and understand that the straw man the article then sets up is absolutely not what is being said. And yet you believe the straw man?
So what did the actual quote say? Did you look at the second version? "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. Is that not "Capitalism"?
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 14:07 - Nov 7 by A_Fans_Dad
So what did the actual quote say? Did you look at the second version? "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. Is that not "Capitalism"?
The quote's in the article you posted?
That's what I'm saying. It gives the quote, and then spins it to say that it says something it clearly does not.
Changing an economic development model doesn't mean destroying capitalism.
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 14:30 - Nov 7 with 1166 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:27 - Nov 7 by Humpty
Dav.
Why are you more clever than the rest of us?
Why are a minority of scientists funded by big coal and the likes of Rupert Murdoch more clever than about 97% of the scientists who actually study the subject?
What type of arrogance does it take for someone with no scientific knoweldge to think he knows better than everyone else. Him and dad. because they read things in right wing blogs?
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 14:30 - Nov 7 by A_Fans_Dad
So we have numerous Economic Experts who say that is what their interpretation is and you say they are wrong. OK.
I can now see that I can present data and you will not believe it.
Perhaps you would like to comment on why the the Ottmar Edenhofer quote is wrong as well as that seems quite unambiguous? Or any of the other quotes.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2017 14:31]
You haven't presented data. You presented a quote and then said that it said what it did not. The spin on the quote is not data.
On the Edenhofer quote, he's correct that climate policy redistributes the world's wealth. But what the Trump spin would have you believe (and right wing blogs) and you and Davillin obviously take this simplistic view as well, that he is somehow talking about actively passing money from one county to another. That is a complete misinterpretation of what is being said. The point that he is making, is that countries that are 'wealthy' at present are those that sit on, or control, the world's fossil fuel supplies. So the US, as an example. Saudi as another example. I referred to it in an earlier post on this thread.
Climate change policy would by its very nature, reduce the value of those fossil fuel stores, and this reduces the relative economic strength of the countries that either sit on those stores, or haven acquired control of them (as I also said, the US's military focus has almost exclusively concentrated on that over the years). The flip side, is that Africa (as an example), which has vast rivers, limitless sunlight etc etc, would become far more valuable in terms of natural resources if the world's power needs could be generated from those sources.
Hence, a 'de facto' redistribution of wealth between nations.
The reason that the world's development process is changing (which as I said does not mean they are attempting to destroy capitalism), is that at no point since the Industrial Revolution, has an increase in GDP not been accompanied by an associated increase in polluting the atmosphere. Wealth has become intertwined with use of fossil fuels (a fundamental reason why Britain was able to obtain its empire was us sitting on vast reserves of coal and being able to extract it). They are now deliberately attempting to divorce those two things. So, as an example, trying to persuade. China that it too, can become wealthy, without destroying the world.
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:23 - Nov 7 with 1101 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 12:27 - Nov 7 by A_Fans_Dad
Absolutley typical, attack the person and not there data. If as you say we shouldn't believe what she says why do you think that the Australian BOM has admitted to what she has found?
I'm not attacking her or saying don't believe her. I'm just pointing out there's a lot of controversy around her, so be thorough in your own assessment of her work. I've know idea what BOM have been doing - never worked with them, never seen any of their data.
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:33 - Nov 7 with 1089 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 13:14 - Nov 7 by E20Jack
Its all very sad. Glad you knew though. Many dont.
The health risks are unbelievable too. The world health organisation puts processed meat (bacon for example) as a group 1 carcinogenic, alongside plutonium. Red meats are group 2. Huge links to cancer. Dairy is strongly linked to breast cancer. Yet cancer research is sponsored by Danone and the biggest meat supplier in the USA and even on their website have meal plans that include dairy and beef, there is no money in finding a cure, keeping everyone sick and needing medication and healthcare is worth trillions, its all linked. Even woth the pharmaceutical companies - most antibiotics created in this world are consumed by healthy animals. These industries pay to have dairy and meat on the government recommended nutrient chart (that triangle you are shown in school), it isnt actually good for you what so ever, in fact quite the opposite. Not even touching upon the horrifying cruelty in these industries.
Anyway I feel that is a little of piste, but get very angry about these things.
It is definitely a fact that meat and milk are dangerous things for predatory omnivorous mammals to consume.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:33 - Nov 7 by Highjack
It is definitely a fact that meat and milk are dangerous things for predatory omnivorous mammals to consume.
Milk is completely unnatural for us to consume. I eat cheese etc so I'm not saying this as a vegan or veggie for that matter, but no other animal consumes the milk product of another species. It's designed for feeding that animal's young, not us.
And we are designed to eat meat, but very infrequently. We are designed to mainly live on seeds, fruit, vegetables etc with the odd blow out on meat (and then, eaten on its own). Not have it every day.
1
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:56 - Nov 7 with 1082 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:33 - Nov 7 by Highjack
It is definitely a fact that meat and milk are dangerous things for predatory omnivorous mammals to consume.
Feed a goldfish meat and it will become an omnivore, technically speaking. Doesn't mean the meat is good for its body and well being.
We were not designed to eat meat, certainly not at the levels we do. Our teeth and jaw structure is not designed for tearing flesh and our gut is certainly not designed for it. Meat eating on this scale is cultural - but so is rape in many societies.
I wont even touch upon the consumption of the mammary secretions of a cow. Again that is cultural and people are conditioned to think it is normal and good for you. It is formula designed to turn an 85lbs calf into a 1800lbs beast The odd thing is people would rather drink from the breast of an animal than their own species. We most certainly were not designed for that - hence the majority of the world is lactose intolerant.
If we were supposed to eat meat then it wouldn't be so damaging to our health. it is simple mind conditioning by corporations, pharmaceutical companies and governments, and they ensure that they get you when you are young. It is unsustainable, unhealthy, unnatural and cruel beyond comprehension.
Luckily people are waking up and the vegan movement is one of the largest growing movement in the world at the moment. I went full meat eater to vegan last year after opening my eyes to what is going on and have never felt so healthy.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:56 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
Milk is completely unnatural for us to consume. I eat cheese etc so I'm not saying this as a vegan or veggie for that matter, but no other animal consumes the milk product of another species. It's designed for feeding that animal's young, not us.
And we are designed to eat meat, but very infrequently. We are designed to mainly live on seeds, fruit, vegetables etc with the odd blow out on meat (and then, eaten on its own). Not have it every day.
Snap. Same minute too
Milk is allowed to have a certain amount of blood and pus in it. It genuinely turns my stomach. The problem with consuming calcium in that form is that you then get rid of your own through your urine. So you are taking in less suited calcium and getting rid of the good stuff. there is a direct link between hip fracture in women that consume a lot of calcium from animal sources and those that do not. You are told from a young age it is good for teeth and bones - it is the opposite.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 18:01 - Nov 7 by Highjack
He summed up that rant with the last line where his unbelievable truth turned out to be unbelievable false.
If I asked for rat milk with my meal of dog cottage pie with a side of cat tongue people would think I was mental. The reason a cow is used and normalised is simply because it can be impregnated artificially (raped), injected with hormones, gives birth has its young murdered in front of it and then have suckers attached to it all day until they are raw and bleeding. This process then continues and continues until it collapses. Cows have tremendous bonds with its young and is often in a constant state of mourning.
This happens all over the country and all over the world. Saying we have done it for a long time so is fine didn't do the slavery trade any favours...
If you went to see these processes you would intrinsically feel uneasy about it and that it is wrong. But will then be overridden by the conditioned mind that says ''well people have to eat''. The fact you will feel uneasy about it is simply because it is wrong. So if you human senses tell you something is wrong, then that says that naturally you shouldn't really be doing it.
Align your morals with your actions is something I was told once.
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 17:59 - Nov 7 by E20Jack
Snap. Same minute too
Milk is allowed to have a certain amount of blood and pus in it. It genuinely turns my stomach. The problem with consuming calcium in that form is that you then get rid of your own through your urine. So you are taking in less suited calcium and getting rid of the good stuff. there is a direct link between hip fracture in women that consume a lot of calcium from animal sources and those that do not. You are told from a young age it is good for teeth and bones - it is the opposite.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2017 18:02]
I don't drink any milk (I like almond milk and will occasionally have a soya latte) but I love cheese and would find that really difficult to give up sadly, as I quite like the idea of veganism (done properly, not the processed substitutes which are just as bad).
I eat meat about once every two or three weeks if that and do enjoy it on the odd occasion that I eat it but I don't think I'd find it difficult to give up. I do eat fish though (omega 3s are good for a woman of 50)!
0
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 18:14 - Nov 7 with 1065 views
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 18:10 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
I don't drink any milk (I like almond milk and will occasionally have a soya latte) but I love cheese and would find that really difficult to give up sadly, as I quite like the idea of veganism (done properly, not the processed substitutes which are just as bad).
I eat meat about once every two or three weeks if that and do enjoy it on the odd occasion that I eat it but I don't think I'd find it difficult to give up. I do eat fish though (omega 3s are good for a woman of 50)!
Yes I am also an almond and soya milk consumer now. Its funny how quickly your tastes adapt. I found it tricky initially but just couldn't go back. Now I genuinely feel healthier than I have ever been. Eating dead energy cannot be healthy. Once someone told me that if you eat violence then it consumes you, and it is true. I was always a meat eater and knew how wrong it was, never sat easy with me.
It has to be someones personal choice at the end of the day. I tried to go veggie a few times unsuccessfully until one day I saw a truck load of pigs presumably going to slaughter. It stopped at the lights and they were looking through the slats in the truck just looking at me, they seemed terrified but also a little trusting. I didn't eat meat from that second on. I don't feel we have the right to murder other mammals needlessly when there are plenty of other non violent ways to get the same nutrition that doesn't destroy the planet and you and your families health in the process. 56 BILLION land animals killed every year. can you imagine that?
White House downplaying US manmade climate change report on 18:18 - Nov 7 by E20Jack
Yes I am also an almond and soya milk consumer now. Its funny how quickly your tastes adapt. I found it tricky initially but just couldn't go back. Now I genuinely feel healthier than I have ever been. Eating dead energy cannot be healthy. Once someone told me that if you eat violence then it consumes you, and it is true. I was always a meat eater and knew how wrong it was, never sat easy with me.
It has to be someones personal choice at the end of the day. I tried to go veggie a few times unsuccessfully until one day I saw a truck load of pigs presumably going to slaughter. It stopped at the lights and they were looking through the slats in the truck just looking at me, they seemed terrified but also a little trusting. I didn't eat meat from that second on. I don't feel we have the right to murder other mammals needlessly when there are plenty of other non violent ways to get the same nutrition that doesn't destroy the planet and you and your families health in the process. 56 BILLION land animals killed every year. can you imagine that?
Never been happier.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2017 18:21]
I massively recommend The Gate by the way (they have three restaurants in London) one of my favourite restaurants is the one in Hammersmith. They are vegetarian but most dishes are actually vegan. I had an amazing vegan Eton Mess in there last weekend (the vegan meringue was incredible - asked the chef what he used instead of egg whites, and he used chickpea water).
In a link to Swansea as well, the Hammersmith restaurant is in the house owned by Frank Brangwyn, he of the panels and hall.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
