UN Climate Report - Global crisis by 2040

[fries]

“The report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html

 

[CLQ]

Reminder that the Trump administration has finally admitted that climate change is real and not a Chinese hoax. What they are saying now is that our fate is sealed so why even try to change the course? That is not the case at all, we can still somewhat reverse the effects of climate change so our world doesn't go completely to shit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b9f6abe5903f

 

[Casey]

It always seems a little suspect that we are always like ten years away from total disaster. Like in the course of human history we just happened to figure it out exactly 10 years before shit hits the fan? How convenient.

 

[CLQ]

It always seems a little suspect that we are always like ten years away from total disaster. Like in the course of human history we just happened to figure it out exactly 10 years before shit hits the fan? How convenient.

You're really going to have to expand on your stupid fucking "point." It doesn't make any sense. What do you mean over the course of history we are 10 years out?

 

[profa_212]

It always seems a little suspect that we are always like ten years away from total disaster. Like in the course of human history we just happened to figure it out exactly 10 years before shit hits the fan? How convenient.

Climate change has been known since the 1930s what are you talking about.

 

[-eREKTion-]

Change my mind: The US should cull like 85% of the world population in order to reduce the global carbon footprint. Or we could do like a hunger games thing, idk.

 

[freestyler540]

Meanwhile in Canada...

Doug Ford scraps carbon tax plan and sets up climate fight with Trudeau

Decision to end program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions puts Ontario in line for showdown with federal government

- The Guardian

'The worst tax ever': Doug Ford and Jason Kenney hold campaign-style rally against carbon levy

More than 1,500 packed into BMO Centre at the Calgary Stampede grounds

-CBC news

 

[Lonely]

We need to start building everything out of wood. A good chunk of emmisions are from construction industry/using materials like cement and asphalt.

 

[robbinJAHood]

We need to start building everything out of wood. A good chunk of emmisions are from construction industry/using materials like cement and asphalt.

But then we have no trees and less oxygen

We need to utilize ways to reuse and build with all the shit we already have made. We’re making more trash than we even know what to do with. Waste Management bought themselves out of their glass recycling contracts in all the counties surrounding where I live because they don’t make enough money off of recycling it. SAD

 

[Chunderface]

It always seems a little suspect that we are always like ten years away from total disaster. Like in the course of human history we just happened to figure it out exactly 10 years before shit hits the fan? How convenient.

I actually lol'd.

 

[Lonely]

But then we have no trees and less oxygen

We need to utilize ways to reuse and build with all the shit we already have made. We’re making more trash than we even know what to do with. Waste Management bought themselves out of their glass recycling contracts in all the counties surrounding where I live because they don’t make enough money off of recycling it. SAD

I'm glad you brought this up. This is a common misconception that I used to have as well. To address your first point the majority of deforestation is a result of agriculture. Trees are renewable and store carbon unlike almost all construction materials. When you cut down a tree and making a building out of that wood the carbon that the tree absorbed from the atmosphere remains in the wood. It's only released through burning or decomposition.

This is great because it lowers the carbon foot print when used as a construction material. Especially because most large land owning and paper corporations replant more trees than they cut. Conventional materials like concrete take co2 to make and move, and concrete does not store or absorb any co2 from the air.

An increase in using wood as a large scale construction material means an increase in co2 absorption, co2 storage, and tree plantings.

Nowadays with materials like clt's large scale buildings made with wood are more viable than ever. There's already one built in Vancouver and there's plans to build even larger buildings elsewhere. Using wood is cheaper (for the most part), more sustainable, and in some cases stronger and safer. It's an incredible resource that definitely is under-utilized.

https://archinect.com/news/article/149968916/world-s-tallest-wood-building-constructed-in-vancouver

**This post was edited on Oct 9th 2018 at 6:26:26pm

 

[SofaKingSick]

It always seems a little suspect that we are always like ten years away from total disaster. Like in the course of human history we just happened to figure it out exactly 10 years before shit hits the fan? How convenient.

uhh no. climate change has been known about for decades now. it's just that some people are too selfish and near sighted (and their followers too uneducated and gullible) to want to do anything about it, so it's been politicized and turned into something people think they can "believe in" or not because so much money and misinformation has been pumped into the argument

e.g. exxon mobil
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

"Psuedo-Science"

 

[Casey]

You're really going to have to expand on your stupid fucking "point." It doesn't make any sense. What do you mean over the course of history we are 10 years out?

If you’re strictly playing a numbers game, the idea that human beings first cultivated fire 400,000 years ago, becan to use it on an industrial scale in 1760 AD to the point that it altered the atmosphere and in 2018 correctly predicted that they had exactly 12 years to right this inexorable wrong that had been committed by mankind, and then for the first time in 4 billion years of life on this planet a species pro-actively avoided its own demise prior to suffering the consequences of fucking up. Sure, I’ll buy that.

 

[Lonely]

If you’re strictly playing a numbers game, the idea that human beings first cultivated fire 400,000 years ago, becan to use it on an industrial scale in 1760 AD to the point that it altered the atmosphere and in 2018 correctly predicted that they had exactly 12 years to right this inexorable wrong that had been committed by mankind, and then for the first time in 4 billion years of life on this planet a species pro-actively avoided its own demise prior to suffering the consequences of fucking up. Sure, I’ll buy that.

I think I can agree with this point and still acknowledge the existence of climate change.

 

[skiboigrif]

is grass sking becoming the move?

 

[Casey]

I think I can agree with this point and still acknowledge the existence of climate change.

I would hope so. Climate change is based on data and observation. Many of the smartest and best educated people in the world have dedicated their lives to developing climate models in hopes that they are in some way meaningful for society.

I am just pointing out that the solution to politicization in one direction is not politicization in the other.

 

[Lonely]

I would hope so. Climate change is based on data and observation. Many of the smartest and best educated people in the world have dedicated their lives to developing climate models in hopes that they are in some way meaningful for society.

I am just pointing out that the solution to politicization in one direction is not politicization in the other.

You took the words out of my mouth. I think the idea behind putting a time on irreversible climate change is intended to use fear as a motivator.

Fear can be a good motivator but ultimately I think it has more polarizing effects than motivating in todays social climate.

 

[CLQ]

If you’re strictly playing a numbers game, the idea that human beings first cultivated fire 400,000 years ago, becan to use it on an industrial scale in 1760 AD to the point that it altered the atmosphere and in 2018 correctly predicted that they had exactly 12 years to right this inexorable wrong that had been committed by mankind, and then for the first time in 4 billion years of life on this planet a species pro-actively avoided its own demise prior to suffering the consequences of fucking up. Sure, I’ll buy that.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Its midterms and i'm a little braindead but could someone dumb it down to what he is trying to say? I don't want to go off on something that I didn't understand fully. Anyway if you didn't want this to be political, you can thank the Republican party for making it political.

 

[Casey]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Its midterms and i'm a little braindead but could someone dumb it down to what he is trying to say? I don't want to go off on something that I didn't understand fully. Anyway if you didn't want this to be political, you can thank the Republican party for making it political.

No sarcasm. I was making the point that it seems coincidental that the point of no return has been determined to be in the near future. Seems every bit as likely a purely data driven conclusion would say we have already passed it, it is way in the future, or there is no reliable way of knowing.

 

[-eREKTion-]

No sarcasm. I was making the point that it seems coincidental that the point of no return has been determined to be in the near future. Seems every bit as likely a purely data driven conclusion would say we have already passed it, it is way in the future, or there is no reliable way of knowing.

I'm with this dude. Climate change is happening and it's catastrophic but miss me with all this alarmist rhetoric. Is the world ending? No, so let's all just calm the fuck down and elect sensible-calm people who will do good things.

 

[CLQ]

No sarcasm. I was making the point that it seems coincidental that the point of no return has been determined to be in the near future. Seems every bit as likely a purely data driven conclusion would say we have already passed it, it is way in the future, or there is no reliable way of knowing.

A purely data driven conclusion would say that humans have had an irreversible effect on the atmosphere. What the scientific community has previously been looking at was a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees. This report was looking at the damage of a rise in temperature of 2.7 degrees. On our current track, 2.7 degrees isn't that far away. Thats why it seems so close, they are specifically looking at whats going to happen in the next 20 years.

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

As much as I would like to see this all drastically turn around in 20+ years I don’t see it happening at all. This shit only matters to the first world (which is fair considering the first world caused this problem). Everyone else on this planet is having enough of a hard time just trying to make ends meet. Joe Schmo making 9.25 an hour doesn’t have the ability to change his ways in time.

Realistically this is a century long fix if not longer and that’s with everyone getting on board right away. We have a better chance if we pump all this excess co2 into space or find a way to remove it from the atmosphere.

You obviously have no actual knowledge of organic chemistry.

Did you even know that during the Jurassic period there was 5000 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Or that the Hawaiian eruptions produced more carbon dioxide than France did in 2 years? Or that trees need carbon dioxide to live?

You probably believe that CO2 happens to be the master control to global temperatures unlike... You know.. the big ball of fire in the centre of the solar system or cloud cover or the millions of other elements and compounds in our atmosphere.

Yeah I'm sure it's the 400ppmA of CO2 in the atmosphere that alter the climate.

 

[CLQ]

You obviously have no actual knowledge of organic chemistry.

Did you even know that during the Jurassic period there was 5000 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Or that the Hawaiian eruptions produced more carbon dioxide than France did in 2 years? Or that trees need carbon dioxide to live?

You probably believe that CO2 happens to be the master control to global temperatures unlike... You know.. the big ball of fire in the centre of the solar system or cloud cover or the millions of other elements and compounds in our atmosphere.

Yeah I'm sure it's the 400ppmA of CO2 in the atmosphere that alter the climate.

A volcano release about 65 to 300 million tonnes of CO2 per year. The burning of fossils fuels and land use account for 34 billion tonnes of CO2 every year. Yes man you are genius for figuring out that trees need CO2 to live.

You are genius for thinking its the Sun as well!! Only that the temperature of the Sun is trending down, so the Earth should really be cooling.

Your "knowledge" of organic chemistry is freshman of year of high school 8 years ago and being stoned watching Fox News.

Feel free to look up, yes research thats right, some of your arguments before you comment.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:40:32am

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:40:50am

 

[McNoche]

I’m fine going down with a sinking ship but let’s make sure we go down in a blaze of glory. I’m not trying to limp away from this bitch.

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

A volcano release about 65 to 300 million tonnes of CO2 per year. The burning of fossils fuels and land use account for 34 billion tonnes of CO2 every year. Yes man you are genius for figuring out that trees need CO2 to live.

You are genius for thinking its the Sun as well!! Only that the temperature of the Sun is trending down, so the Earth should really be cooling.

Your "knowledge" of organic chemistry is freshman of year of high school 8 years ago and being stoned watching Fox News.

Feel free to look up, yes research thats right, some of your arguments before you comment.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:40:32am

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:40:50am

Thanks for replying to my obvious bait.

Here's some "research" for you since you think you are so smart.

According to data from the University of Alabama - Huntsville (UAH) published by Dr. Roy Spencer, lower atmospheric temperature recorded on satellite shows that the average temperature has only risen by 0.20 of a degree with a downward trend from 1979 to February of this year.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that global mean land and ocean temperatures have risen by less that 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000 with a downward trend adjusted for anomalies in 2015.

Amoungst the shifting goal posts produced by the likes of Al Gore and company for how many years we have to fix this "problem" the IPCC has produced no significant data to corroborate a runaway global climate catastrophe. You can check the unadjusted data from satellites and deep ocean buoys to show that there has been no runaway change. It is a cash grab, that is it.

 

[Lonely]

Thanks for replying to my obvious bait.

Here's some "research" for you since you think you are so smart.

According to data from the University of Alabama - Huntsville (UAH) published by Dr. Roy Spencer, lower atmospheric temperature recorded on satellite shows that the average temperature has only risen by 0.20 of a degree with a downward trend from 1979 to February of this year.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that global mean land and ocean temperatures have risen by less that 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000 with a downward trend adjusted for anomalies in 2015.

Amoungst the shifting goal posts produced by the likes of Al Gore and company for how many years we have to fix this "problem" the IPCC has produced no significant data to corroborate a runaway global climate catastrophe. You can check the unadjusted data from satellites and deep ocean buoys to show that there has been no runaway change. It is a cash grab, that is it.

Could you link those?

 

[CLQ]

Thanks for replying to my obvious bait.

Here's some "research" for you since you think you are so smart.

According to data from the University of Alabama - Huntsville (UAH) published by Dr. Roy Spencer, lower atmospheric temperature recorded on satellite shows that the average temperature has only risen by 0.20 of a degree with a downward trend from 1979 to February of this year.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that global mean land and ocean temperatures have risen by less that 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000 with a downward trend adjusted for anomalies in 2015.

Amoungst the shifting goal posts produced by the likes of Al Gore and company for how many years we have to fix this "problem" the IPCC has produced no significant data to corroborate a runaway global climate catastrophe. You can check the unadjusted data from satellites and deep ocean buoys to show that there has been no runaway change. It is a cash grab, that is it.

The model it uses is far too simple to accurately represent the Earth's climate

The paper doesn't provide enough information to replicate their results

Their results depend on using one particular data set

They assume that ENSO responds to cloud cover changes, when in reality, the reverse is true

The study's conclusions are incorrect and unsupportable

The editor-in-chief of the journal that published it stepped down concluding that Spencers journal was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".https://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

Dr Roy Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Spencer believes in intelligent design. Spencer is famous for being belligerently wrong, notably starting with his claim that his satellite data proved the globe was cooling, calling AGW proponents frauds ... until he had to correct his data for orbital decay and suddenly showed warming as predicted.

UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence

https://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html

UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 2 - Of Cherries and Volcanoes

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part2.html

Desmog: Roy Spencer

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer's oil-industry ties [2011]

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

Overview of Spencer foolishness

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder [2011]

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

Climate Asylum

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is "Fundamentally Flawed," Editor Resigns, Apologizes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/

Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Credit to this guy for assembling all of that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatecha...l_warming_con_scamdr_roy_spencer_phd/dr4o6p3/

The IPCC is a completely credible source the report that was recently released has:

133 Contributing authors (CAs)

Over 6,000 cited references

A total of 42,001 expert and government review comments.

Keep on believing your Fox News talking head though

I'm going to leave you with this video of our Arctic Circle over the past ~30 years.

 

[CLQ]

Thanks for replying to my obvious bait.

Here's some "research" for you since you think you are so smart.

According to data from the University of Alabama - Huntsville (UAH) published by Dr. Roy Spencer, lower atmospheric temperature recorded on satellite shows that the average temperature has only risen by 0.20 of a degree with a downward trend from 1979 to February of this year.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that global mean land and ocean temperatures have risen by less that 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000 with a downward trend adjusted for anomalies in 2015.

Amoungst the shifting goal posts produced by the likes of Al Gore and company for how many years we have to fix this "problem" the IPCC has produced no significant data to corroborate a runaway global climate catastrophe. You can check the unadjusted data from satellites and deep ocean buoys to show that there has been no runaway change. It is a cash grab, that is it.

Oh just a reminder to everyone, this guy votes! Make to sure to register to vote!!

 

[TRVP_ANGEL]

Change my mind: Or we could do like a hunger games thing, idk.

Breaking News: US population reduce to 0 as fat people are killed off first

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:54:48pm

 

[shinbangclan]

destroy china

-has lost whatever nobility it used to have in the feudal times, the commies shredded it all

-taking a perpetual fat shit on the environment at any given time, astronomically more than any other country

-consumes the culture of other countries

-we are only dependent on them because they make our stuff, stuff we have too much of as well

 

[skiP.E.I.]

The end is nigh.

 

[-eREKTion-]

Breaking News: US population reduce to 0 as fat people are killed off first

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 12:54:48pm

The US is the capital, we don't compete.

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

Oh just a reminder to everyone, this guy votes! Make to sure to register to vote!!

You do all that and can't even figure out I'm not a fucking 'murican.

And every source you have used has incredible bias. Forbes, WaPo, Reddit, SkepSci.

Stop clickbaiting people by linking the first results you search up on Google.

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 3:48:47pm

 

[SofaKingSick]

You do all that and can't even figure out I'm not a fucking 'murican.

haha that's about the level of response i expected from you to that

 

[CLQ]

You do all that and can't even figure out I'm not a fucking 'murican.

And every source you have used has incredible bias. Forbes, WaPo, Reddit, SkepSci.

Stop clickbaiting people by linking the first results you search up on Google.

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 3:48:47pm

Your name is Greg [Redacted]. You live in Whistler but you were born in New Zealand. You lived in the Palmerston North area before moving out to Canada. You already have a receding hairline and you browse Infowars daily, the same website that said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I'm sure whatever "source" you have is Breitbart or something similar

 

[clorox]

For you guys calling climate change a cash grab, around 92% of the earths glaciers are receding at an alarming rate, and our atmospheres CO2 level is at an 800,000 year high. But hey, it would happen naturally, right? Just find a graph of carbon emissions since 1794 when the internal combustion engine was invented. Cars have gotten a lot cleaner in recent years, and with our current technology, can actually produce less carbon than making massive lithium ion batteries for hybrids and electric cars. That said, there are plenty of pollutants that need to be adjusted. Most new lawnmowers produce 93 times more carbon than the average car. I'm not trying to say what has been said again and again, but climate change caused by humans absolutely exists, and it is the job of humans to slow or even reverse the effects. It frustrates me when people just figure there is nothing we can do about it. Luckily, clean energy is becoming more and more popular, and creates more jobs than it replaces. Not only are these higher paying in the realm of engineering and physics, require trained labor that will pay better than most unskilled professions.

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

Your name is Greg [Redacted]. You live in Whistler but you were born in New Zealand. You lived in the Palmerston North area before moving out to Canada. You already have a receding hairline and you browse Infowars daily, the same website that said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I'm sure whatever "source" you have is Breitbart or something similar

Wow I'm so scared! You managed to find outdated information on me. So let me update you.

I live in Auckland, New Zealand. I was at university in Palmerston North 4 years ago now lol.

I USED to live in Whistler. Haven't for 5 months now.

I haven't looked at Infowars in ages or Breitbart. But I do occasionally browse /r/the_donald for juicy memes.

Why would my personal appearance hurt you so much? Doesn't bother me in the slightest bro.

Pretty lit, posting whatever you see on my Facebook and Instagram and using it to try and smear me. Insulting someone only makes you look stupid, not me. But I'm sure you are a nice guy. Just got alot of pent up anger so I'll let it slide.

see you like ad hominem so I won't stoop to your level of pettiness my friend. In any case the onus is on you to predict the future, to show me that a catastrophe is going to happen. I believe it's not, because wolf has been cried too many times and most people on both political and social spectrums are tired of it. So you can't change my mind and insults and frugal data aren't going to do it. So I'm not even sure what point you are trying to prove anymore.

Get out and shred some lines.

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 5:35:20pm

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 5:40:50pm

 

[shinbangclan]

Your name is Greg [Redacted]. You live in Whistler but you were born in New Zealand. You lived in the Palmerston North area before moving out to Canada. You already have a receding hairline and you browse Infowars daily, the same website that said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I'm sure whatever "source" you have is Breitbart or something similar

Alright buddy that’s just fucking predatory... can you bring your critical politics somewhere else? Maybe some obscure Reddit subfourm. NS isn’t for this.

 

[-eREKTion-]

Your name is Greg [Redacted]. You live in Whistler but you were born in New Zealand. You lived in the Palmerston North area before moving out to Canada. You already have a receding hairline and you browse Infowars daily, the same website that said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I'm sure whatever "source" you have is Breitbart or something similar

Dude, wat?

 

[CLQ]

Alright buddy that’s just fucking predatory... can you bring your critical politics somewhere else? Maybe some obscure Reddit subfourm. NS isn’t for this.

Reddit has a lot of anti-doxxing rules, you get IP banned IIRC for doxxing someone. NS has had quite a fair amount of doxxing going on for years, with no rules against. He told me i couldn't figure out he wasn't American, so i spent 5 minutes looking him up to see what he was. Don't let this distract you from the fact that he has posted 0 sources for his claims

 

[shinbangclan]

Reddit has a lot of anti-doxxing rules, you get IP banned IIRC for doxxing someone. NS has had quite a fair amount of doxxing going on for years, with no rules against. He told me i couldn't figure out he wasn't American, so i spent 5 minutes looking him up to see what he was. Don't let this distract you from the fact that he has posted 0 sources for his claims

this proves two points,

One being that there’s a good reason why doxxing gets you an IP ban, and that’s because it’s a wrathful thing to do.

Second, I think your priorities need to be reconsidered if you are willing to do such a thing only to prove a political point. We’re here because we ski, not because of politics. People can believe what they want to believe and where that will get them in life doesn’t concern you man.

All good vibes here, just don’t want you to get carried away over something so petty.

 

[CLQ]

Wow I'm so scared! You managed to find outdated information on me. So let me update you.

I live in Auckland, New Zealand. I was at university in Palmerston North 4 years ago now lol.

I USED to live in Whistler. Haven't for 5 months now.

I haven't looked at Infowars in ages or Breitbart. But I do occasionally browse /r/the_donald for juicy memes.

Why would my personal appearance hurt you so much? Doesn't bother me in the slightest bro.

Pretty lit, posting whatever you see on my Facebook and Instagram and using it to try and smear me. Insulting someone only makes you look stupid, not me. But I'm sure you are a nice guy. Just got alot of pent up anger so I'll let it slide.

see you like ad hominem so I won't stoop to your level of pettiness my friend. In any case the onus is on you to predict the future, to show me that a catastrophe is going to happen. I believe it's not, because wolf has been cried too many times and most people on both political and social spectrums are tired of it. So you can't change my mind and insults and frugal data aren't going to do it. So I'm not even sure what point you are trying to prove anymore.

Get out and shred some lines.

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 5:35:20pm

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 5:40:50pm

I was never trying to change your mind, you're to stupid to understand this. I've given plenty of evidence with reliable sources and you have yet to post 1 source. "Frugal data" yet you reject the IPCC, you reject what the vast majority of scientists are saying.

 

[CLQ]

this proves two points,

One being that there’s a good reason why doxxing gets you an IP ban, and that’s because it’s a wrathful thing to do.

Second, I think your priorities need to be reconsidered if you are willing to do such a thing only to prove a political point. We’re here because we ski, not because of politics. People can believe what they want to believe and where that will get them in life doesn’t concern you man.

All good vibes here, just don’t want you to get carried away over something so petty.

He literally asked me too! He has a link to his instagram in his profile, its not like i spent any time finding him online. Skiing is political, you're going to have to get over it. Climate change effects skiing, look at Tahoe, Utah, the east coast. It doesn't have to be political, hell Richard Nixon was the one who proposed the EPA. For whatever reason, probably lobbying, Republicans have chosen to go against/not believe in climate change.

Anyway yeah probs shouldn't have doxxed him even though it was insanely easy, you right. Was a lil petty

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

I was never trying to change your mind, you're to stupid to understand this. I've given plenty of evidence with reliable sources and you have yet to post 1 source. "Frugal data" yet you reject the IPCC, you reject what the vast majority of scientists are saying.

Oh dear! What will my poor intelligence do now that it has been wounded so dearly??

Let this quote from Michael Crighton sink in.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period"

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 6:10:38pm

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

He literally asked me too! He has a link to his instagram in his profile, its not like i spent any time finding him online. Skiing is political, you're going to have to get over it. Climate change effects skiing, look at Tahoe, Utah, the east coast. It doesn't have to be political, hell Richard Nixon was the one who proposed the EPA. For whatever reason, probably lobbying, Republicans have chosen to go against/not believe in climate change.

Anyway yeah probs shouldn't have doxxed him even though it was insanely easy, you right. Was a lil petty

If you are gonna dox me properly, at the very least get my full address and mobile number. Pretty half-assed attempt imo.

 

[CLQ]

Oh dear! What will my poor intelligence do now that it has been wounded so dearly??

Let this quote from Michael Crighton sink in.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period"

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 6:10:38pm

You are really going to post this quote after talking about Dr. Roy Spencers study which:

The paper doesn't provide enough information to replicate their results

Their results depend on using one particular data set

I would also like you talk about how cigarettes don't cause cancer and how vaccines cause autism. There is a consensus on that in the scientific community.

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

You are really going to post this quote after talking about Dr. Roy Spencers study which:

The paper doesn't provide enough information to replicate their results

Their results depend on using one particular data set

I would also like you talk about how cigarettes don't cause cancer and how vaccines cause autism. There is a consensus on that in the scientific community.

Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry has prepared a new presentation (highlighted in 56 slides) on climate issues (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf) which addresses many climate science topics including global temperatures and the growing divergence between actual temperature measurements and the overly warm exaggerated temperature projections of climate models.

She notes in her presentation that the latest 2013 UN IPCC AR5 climate report presented information showing (slide #24) how climate models over state and exaggerate projections of global temperatures versus actual measured data. Dr. Christy’s Congressional testimony data on climate model global temperature exaggerations is also included in her presentation (slide #25).

In addition to climate models over exaggerating global temperature projections these models also have failed to account for the behavior and impact of major natural climate variation events such as those associated with ENSO as discussed in the Watts Up With That article “Once Again El Nino Didn’t Do What Was Forecast. Why?.

In his article Dr. Ball notes that: “The IPCC claimed with 90% certainty that global warming is due to human CO2. Lack of data combined with omission or lack of understanding of major mechanisms are major reasons why all past, present, and future predictions are wrong. The same is true of major events within the Earth/atmosphere system like El Nino or ENSO. As it is more frequently said these days, if your predictions are wrong the science is wrong.”

Naturally occurring El Nino events have and continue to influence increasing global temperatures and temperature trends and have done so multiple times every decade. (http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm).

 

[CLQ]

Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry has prepared a new presentation (highlighted in 56 slides) on climate issues (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf) which addresses many climate science topics including global temperatures and the growing divergence between actual temperature measurements and the overly warm exaggerated temperature projections of climate models.

She notes in her presentation that the latest 2013 UN IPCC AR5 climate report presented information showing (slide #24) how climate models over state and exaggerate projections of global temperatures versus actual measured data. Dr. Christy’s Congressional testimony data on climate model global temperature exaggerations is also included in her presentation (slide #25).

In addition to climate models over exaggerating global temperature projections these models also have failed to account for the behavior and impact of major natural climate variation events such as those associated with ENSO as discussed in the Watts Up With That article “Once Again El Nino Didn’t Do What Was Forecast. Why?.

In his article Dr. Ball notes that: “The IPCC claimed with 90% certainty that global warming is due to human CO2. Lack of data combined with omission or lack of understanding of major mechanisms are major reasons why all past, present, and future predictions are wrong. The same is true of major events within the Earth/atmosphere system like El Nino or ENSO. As it is more frequently said these days, if your predictions are wrong the science is wrong.”

Naturally occurring El Nino events have and continue to influence increasing global temperatures and temperature trends and have done so multiple times every decade. (http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm).

Not a credible source
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Fossil_fuel_industry_funding

I'm done arguing with you

 

[Lonely]

this proves two points,

One being that there’s a good reason why doxxing gets you an IP ban, and that’s because it’s a wrathful thing to do.

Second, I think your priorities need to be reconsidered if you are willing to do such a thing only to prove a political point. We’re here because we ski, not because of politics. People can believe what they want to believe and where that will get them in life doesn’t concern you man.

All good vibes here, just don’t want you to get carried away over something so petty.

I really wouldnt consider what clq did doxxing. It's all public, most of it was probably found from Greg's public Instagram that is linked to NS.

EDIT-This is non-skigabber. Hence the politics. I think it's good to talk about politics here rather than in the skiing threads.

**This post was edited on Oct 10th 2018 at 7:30:45pm

 

[1spliff2guinnies]

Not a credible source
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Fossil_fuel_industry_funding

I'm done arguing with you

Links sourcewatch to a wiki page, complains about uncredible sources lol. Get wrecked kid.