Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007

Hey, you are the one pushing climate change. The next glaciation, which you call nonsense, will be much tougher than any minor increase in temperature after a long decline in temperature during the Holocene.

 

I did not call the next glaciation nonsense. What is nonsense is that the next glaciation will happen within a time frame relevant to the context of the conversation.

 

Anyone reading the latest IPCC report will realize that they are saying the planet will be a better place IF the temperature rises as they have predicted.

It's kind of funny. More arable land. More water sources. Sounds good.

 

Well true, one scientist believes we just missed a glaciation and the next window will be in 400 years. Warming actually precedes a glaciation.

 

It's colder in Canada, hint.

 

This depends on where you live on this globe. But if you did any real investigation into the subject you would know this.

 

2016 is the hottest year on record. The earth is getting warmer.

 

That's the point. And the last sentence of your post is absurd. As economies grow and standards of living improve the environment becomes cleaner as demanded by the citizens of those countries. Your and other Malthusians implicit policy recommendation is to keep the third world countries living on a bowl of rice per day. That's disgusting.

 

The MWP was warmer.

 

Real world data falsifies the consensus of computer models. That was very easy.

 

Proof?

 

Actually its not, all the quote claims is that the data is exaggerated and badly done but no evidence is presented in the OP itself. The only scientific evidence is a link to "dailymail" which is completely laughable. The OP must show how the data was exaggerated and rebut counter-arguments if they exist.

 

Glad we managed to agree on something. At some point the earth will also experience a huge warming trend due to something other than mans activity.

As stated in my previous posts. I think we can get through climate change. It is not going to be pretty - especially in certain places such as India. In North America we will have stuff happen but it will probably not be nearly as catastrophic as in other places.

If there was the motivation we could turn down the CO2 and Methane tap relatively quickly. (although even if we did this it might take quite some time to restore the equilibrium - one of the big worries is that defrosting the permafrost will release large amounts of methane).

This is why the #1 environmental issue facing the planet (IMO) is pollution of the oceans. The evidence for this is rock solid ... as opposed to much of the climate speculation (though not all - its really happening).

The strange thing is that while "Climate Change" is hyped up ... Pollution of the Oceans gets almost no coverage in the mainstream media. Sure you can find this stuff reported all the time in Science mags (and perhaps on page 47 of the NYT) but such stuff is only read by wierdo's like me.

There is no conversation about the #2 and #3 issues - increasing population and industrialization of the population. These are responsible for both pollution and climate change attributable to man.

There are bizarre decisions being made such as the move to compact florescent over incandescent. The justification is that the compact florescent is that it is more energy efficient but.. the friggen things contain mercury which is a major heavy metal pollutant. This is a crazy trade-off ... from bad to worse. These things get thrown into landfills (or directly into lakes rivers, ocean in some cases) .. .it rains on the landfill ... seeps into the groundwater and can make its way into rivers and into the ocean. A huge numbers of leaky landfills exist in US/Canada. In places like China and India ? we are lucky if it makes it into the landfill ... never mind thinking these landfills are secure.

The same thing with the Keystone. That was a no brainer. Obama's own study told him that there was no significant CO2 difference between oil sands crude and other crude. 46% of crude going to US refineries is imported from 72 different nations.

The question is then ... do we buy from Canada ... or Nigeria ? The oil industry in Nigeria is a major source of Ocean pollution. This is just a complete no contest. Canada, while its regulations are not quite as tough as here, does not dump sht into the Oceans. A barrel from Canada is way cleaner from an overall environmental perspective than from Nigeria.

Pipeline is a way better, safer, and more environmental friendly means of transport than a Tanker. If a pipeline leaks on the ground ... so what ? You clean it up and move on. The leak is relatively small because you can turn the line off. The problem is if it leaks into a river but the odds of this are very low because the new lines are double walled and super secure underneath rivers (which was not the case in the past) but still it is not that big of a deal in comparison to a tanker letting loose. How do I know this ? My job for 10 years was to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater ... my specialty was bioremediation ... getting bacteria to eat the contaminants. When I was done with a farmers field he had the most fertile soil around for the next 10 years. ... and the dude got paid off.

Economy - We pretty much own Canada. Haliburton, Exxon, Walmart, Baker, GE ... on and on and on. They all operate in the Canadian oil patch and not just as producers. Exxon owns at least one refinery that I know of and you can buy gas at Exxon gas stations. We are then helping US companies by purchasing from Canada. The other thing is that Canadians spend a whole lot of money in the US. Last I checked they had purchased Arizona - this is obviously a bit of a joke by that is what one would think by the number of Canadians that own property there ... escaping those cold winters.

Canada is also our number one export market more than double what we export to China. Nigeria does not even make the list.

Perhaps the biggest issue I had though was the effect on the flow of money. The good economists look at the movement of money. If money is moving your direction life is good - (look at China over the last decade). If it is not life is not so good ... Think Cuba, Venezuela, Russia.

There is a huge market for global capital right now and big competition. The US is not exactly an easy place to do business... in fact it is a regulatory nightmare of sorts. TransCanada spent billions of dollars up front based on assurances from us, and that the US was not some third world clown show. Surprise Surprise !!! The decision was completely political.. just like a 3rd world puppet state. When Obama's own study told him there was no significant CO2 difference (not that we needed this study ... the majority of CO2 comes out the tailpipe regardless of where the crude came from - so this study was just a cheap stall tactic) - he made up some really dumb and unsubstantiated argument .. it was all about politics and had nothing to do with what was best for the environment or the US.

OK ... I digressed a bit. What do you think the effect to global capital was given the one thing that capital hates most is "uncertainty". Watching what happened to TransCanada - a highly reputable company from Canada .... our biggest trading partner and close ally.

Then I forgot to mention the huge number of high paying jobs and capital that would be spent on construction and then the jobs created after the fact due to pipeline operation.

A Nigerian Tanker spends how much capital in the US and creates how many jobs ?

This is a clown show on so many levels.

 

There is no sense in arguing with stupid people. We know it is getting hotter, Scientist say so... But paid pundits that cant get a real job in a field where there is competition, have to work. If someone will pay you big bucks to lie, will you sell your soul ? Some will... what are you gonna do.
Same argument for the past 20 years, tons of proof, but if you use a 5 degree chart, not much is moving... Have Scientist look at it ? Yep, warming up, Have EXXON hire the scientist, it isn't warming, go figure... Soul is sold... Then you have the knuckleheads that will follow... What is a normal person to do ? Do pay attention to STUPID !

 

What part of "China just went through a massive economic expansion and this created a pollution nightmare" did you not understand the first time round ? What part of "you wrong" are you not getting. what part of ... "your claim is demonstrably false" do you not get ?

Second - quit attributing falsehoods to me Mr. Strawman. I never made any policy recommendations. Don't shoot the messenger because yo can not handle the facts.

 

Refuted. Thats why you shouldn't go to the daily mail for your scientific facts.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

 

I tend to shy away from the political aspects of AGW, but you do have a point. Raising economic standards has proven to produce benefits across the board. So it's completely reasonable to think that it would help us adapt to climate change as well.

 

No. I'm not a climatologist, and don't possess that expertise. However, I feel the impact of rising temperatures every year where I live, and read the news that practically every year since about 2010 has been a new world's record for highest temperatures or highest average annual temperatures, including 2016. That concerns me. The economic impact of taking action to avert the effects of global warming is less important than the possible environmental impacts our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to face. I'm convinced they'll judge us and our actions based on that environmental impact rather than any economic impact we might trigger.

 

I am bewildered by the conservative perspective that any problem can be resolved by capitalistic business. There are many challenges in this world that nothing business can ever do will ever have any impact on whatsoever. Conservatives need to learn to value something else in their lives other than money.

 

Link leads to here:



Which seems like an appropriate response to the OP.

 

That's nice. What does this have to do with China's economic recovery increasing pollution ?

 

We've been through this before. The data and references has been presented.

 

Which the Chinese are in the process of cleaning up.

And that's the point - the policy implications are clear. And your understanding of economic growth is not.

 

Of course it is. The major costs of global warming after a ~ 1 deg C temperature rise 100 years from now is air conditioning. And the way to pay for that adaptation is from economic growth.

 

My understanding of economic growth is fine. China "cleaning up" will not equate to a relative decrease in pollution ... they will only decrease the rate of increase.

It is you that is talking out your backside about things you know little about.