Recommended Posts

4 posts to get this up here?  Out of practice there, pardner?  :)  Good to see you back around here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction” 

  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003

  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s 

  • Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level

  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. 

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies. 

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douglas, I apologize for posting the same story a few hours after you did! I don't know how to delete it. I just found yours.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be hardly a time when morons start apologizing, being unable to reflect their own stupidity. Donald Trump is the brightest example, followed by his faithful cult. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Douglas, I apologize for posting the same story a few hours after you did! I don't know how to delete it. I just found yours.

I think you can just do an edit and add a line asking @CMOP to delete it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Upload

38 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

There will be hardly a time when morons start apologizing, being unable to reflect their own stupidity. Donald Trump is the brightest example, followed by his faithful cult. 

I would suggest you enlighten yourself for a smidge, seeing that you are and truly believe in climate change which i do believe in..it is time to focus on the true cause of such a event. 

https://www.livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution

Plz note the date of the article and the fleet size at THAT TIME. Today the fleet is in excess of 150,000. Now a question if i may....how did the science community miss a event that contributes 4000 time more environmental pollution than all the worlds auto's combined...Each Year.

 

,

2013.04.16.Global-Shipping-Routes-800x400.png

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

And now there's this:

NEW STUDY: THE ASTEROID KILLED THE DINOSAURS, BUT VOLCANOES MADE THINGS… BETTER?

Or this one from National Geographic (there are many others coming out at the same time):

Volcanoes may have helped life bounce back after dinosaur-killing asteroid strike

 

 

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Upload

I would suggest you enlighten yourself for a smidge, seeing that you are and truly believe in climate change which i do believe in..it is time to focus on the true cause of such a event. 

https://www.livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution

Plz note the date of the article and the fleet size at THAT TIME. Today the fleet is in excess of 150,000. Now a question if i may....how did the science community miss a event that contributes 4000 time more environmental pollution than all the worlds auto's combined...Each Year.

 

,

2013.04.16.Global-Shipping-Routes-800x400.png

 

Natural gas powered ships is the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_LNG_Engine

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was mostly just an advertisement for his new book.

 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

26 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

That was mostly just an advertisement for his new book.

 

 

Called "how to loose your funding and acceptance in the 'science' community " guess he wanted all that fame Michael Moore got. 

Edited by Rob Kramer
Typo
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Douglas, I apologize for posting the same story a few hours after you did! I don't know how to delete it. I just found yours.

No worries, Ron. I deleted your thread. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Selva said:

No worries, Ron. I deleted your thread. 

Thanks, Selva!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

10 minutes ago, Selva said:

No worries, Ron. I deleted your thread. 

 

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Thanks, Selva!

Ron you just spoke out against censorship and now your thanking them ... sorry the joke wrote itself!

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ipcc-and-skeptics-agree-climate-change-is-not-causing-extreme-weather_3400695.html

Hoesung Lee (C), chair of the IPCC, speaks during a press conference of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) at Songdo Convensia in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 8, 2018. (Jung Yeon-je/AFP/Getty Images)
Hoesung Lee (C), chair of the IPCC, speaks during a press conference of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) at Songdo Convensia in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 8, 2018. (Jung Yeon-je/AFP/Getty Images)

IPCC and Skeptics Agree Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather

 
June 24, 2020 Updated: June 30, 2020
 
 

Commentary

A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion that there’s limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather. Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland senior fellow Anthony Watts on the website “Climate at a Glance.”

Alexander’s paper begins by stating, “The purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”

This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the U.N. body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward. Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” wrote Alexander.

“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” wrote Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high temperature records, which still stand today.”

Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally. And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe. Alexander notes that many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes, including channelization, deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams.

“Climate at a Glance: Floods” confirms Alexander’s assessment, citing data showing there has been no evidence of increasing flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half. Indeed, IPCC writes that it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to state it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes. In other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.

On top of that, a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, found, “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and “Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”

Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe, with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength (Categories 1 through 5) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years. While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes, which are the most studied, has increased during the past 20 years, the current heightened activity level is comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when the earth was cooling, not warming.

“Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes” confirms Alexander’s hurricane conclusions, citing the IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which report there has been no increase in number or severity of hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed. The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. And IPCC’s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”

“Likewise, there is no trend in the frequency of tornadoes in the United States since at least as far back as 1954. The frequency of strong (EF3 or greater) tornadoes has even diminished over that interval. The average number of strong tornadoes annually from 1986 to 2017 was 40 percent less than from 1954 to 1985,” Alexander wrote, concerning the absence of changes in tornado trends during the recent period of modest warming.

“But what about droughts?” alarmists ask. “We know droughts are increasing due to climate change!” Not so, according to data from the IPCC and other research bodies. Indeed, the IPCC reports droughts are becoming less severe, with the United States benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms. In 2017 and 2019, NOAA reported the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.

Simultaneously, the IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while the IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.

Extreme weather events do occur, but they are the result of “natural patterns in the climate system, not global warming,” wrote Alexander. In particular, he cites the periodic, although irregular shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which governs many extremes such as intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin and major floods in eastern North America and western Europe.

Further, El Niño and La Niña cycles in the Pacific Ocean often cause catastrophic flooding in the western Americas, as well as severe droughts in Australia. In Europe, recent heat waves have been driven by changes in the jet stream that block normal weather patterns.

In short, the oft-repeated assertions that weather is getting more extreme is patently false. Drought, flooding, hurricane, and tornado numbers are well within their normal historic range of severity and frequency. Looking at the data, there is absolutely no basis for alarm.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute in Arlington Heights, Ill.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ipcc-and-skeptics-agree-climate-change-is-not-causing-extreme-weather_3400695.html

Hoesung Lee (C), chair of the IPCC, speaks during a press conference of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) at Songdo Convensia in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 8, 2018. (Jung Yeon-je/AFP/Getty Images)
Hoesung Lee (C), chair of the IPCC, speaks during a press conference of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) at Songdo Convensia in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 8, 2018. (Jung Yeon-je/AFP/Getty Images)

IPCC and Skeptics Agree Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather

 
June 24, 2020 Updated: June 30, 2020
 
 

Commentary

A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion that there’s limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather. Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland senior fellow Anthony Watts on the website “Climate at a Glance.”

Alexander’s paper begins by stating, “The purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”

This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the U.N. body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward. Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” wrote Alexander.

“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” wrote Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high temperature records, which still stand today.”

Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally. And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe. Alexander notes that many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes, including channelization, deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams.

“Climate at a Glance: Floods” confirms Alexander’s assessment, citing data showing there has been no evidence of increasing flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half. Indeed, IPCC writes that it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to state it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes. In other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.

On top of that, a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, found, “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and “Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”

Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe, with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength (Categories 1 through 5) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years. While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes, which are the most studied, has increased during the past 20 years, the current heightened activity level is comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when the earth was cooling, not warming.

“Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes” confirms Alexander’s hurricane conclusions, citing the IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which report there has been no increase in number or severity of hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed. The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. And IPCC’s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”

“Likewise, there is no trend in the frequency of tornadoes in the United States since at least as far back as 1954. The frequency of strong (EF3 or greater) tornadoes has even diminished over that interval. The average number of strong tornadoes annually from 1986 to 2017 was 40 percent less than from 1954 to 1985,” Alexander wrote, concerning the absence of changes in tornado trends during the recent period of modest warming.

“But what about droughts?” alarmists ask. “We know droughts are increasing due to climate change!” Not so, according to data from the IPCC and other research bodies. Indeed, the IPCC reports droughts are becoming less severe, with the United States benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms. In 2017 and 2019, NOAA reported the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.

Simultaneously, the IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while the IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.

Extreme weather events do occur, but they are the result of “natural patterns in the climate system, not global warming,” wrote Alexander. In particular, he cites the periodic, although irregular shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which governs many extremes such as intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin and major floods in eastern North America and western Europe.

Further, El Niño and La Niña cycles in the Pacific Ocean often cause catastrophic flooding in the western Americas, as well as severe droughts in Australia. In Europe, recent heat waves have been driven by changes in the jet stream that block normal weather patterns.

In short, the oft-repeated assertions that weather is getting more extreme is patently false. Drought, flooding, hurricane, and tornado numbers are well within their normal historic range of severity and frequency. Looking at the data, there is absolutely no basis for alarm.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute in Arlington Heights, Ill.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Of course not..does one think these guys are complete fools, the below link is gaining ground in the public conversation...It is time to end this nonsense of Climate change it is afterall effecting or disrupting world order.....One must make Priorities first.

https://www.livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Of course not..does one think these guys are complete fools, the below link is gaining ground in the public conversation...It is time to end this nonsense of Climate change it is afterall effecting or disrupting world order.....One must make Priorities first.

https://www.livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution

Once again, natural gas powered ships are the best answer. I have addressed this several times on this forum. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Once again, natural gas powered ships are the best answer. I have addressed this several times on this forum. 

Yes that has been going on now since about 2018, a few yrs ago my son who is a enviromental engineer brought this to my attention. Since that time every forum i am on gets multiple posting's. 

Oregon tried a cap&trade bill here a while back i must have posted that link a thousand times on the local daily fishwrapper as they call it here (newspaper)...That just wrinkles my soul seeing what is being hidden and the tax gains they try to impose under the name of climate change.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ships+converting+to+LNG&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS888US888&oq=ships+converting+to+LNG&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.10781j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Yes that has been going on now since about 2018, a few yrs ago my son who is a enviromental engineer brought this to my attention. Since that time every forum i am on gets multiple posting's. 

Oregon tried a cap&trade bill here a while back i must have posted that link a thousand times on the local daily fishwrapper as they call it here (newspaper)...That just wrinkles my soul seeing what is being hidden and the tax gains they try to impose under the name of climate change.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ships+converting+to+LNG&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS888US888&oq=ships+converting+to+LNG&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.10781j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The first large natural gas ship became operational in 2012. 

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/norway-worlds-first-lng-powered-cargo-ship-launched/

I have been promoting them for many years. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

That was mostly just an advertisement for his new book.

 

 

Agree. I have degrees in Physics, Environmental Science and Business and could refute half of that twit's points but it not worth it. I am a "hard-core" greenie, but I have always known that nuclear power is part of the answer. As for solar, it would only take 8 sites and 0.1% of land mass to power the planet. He didn't know what he was talking about when he was young, doesn't know what he talking about now. Never studied science yet thinks he is such a master at it that his meta-analysis better than mine? He just goes from one guilt trip to another because he will never be able to see the bigger picture. Good thing wind and solar now cheaper than FF's and H2 economy is on it's way. Nobody needs him or his replacement (Greta) anymore. Business is getting on with the job of creating cleaner, cheaper, sustainable, and more secure energy systems. Everybody needs to just get over it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Wombat said:

That was mostly just an advertisement for his new book.

See how you can put words in people's mouths?

Maybe I'll advertise my new book.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas powered ships is the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_LNG_Engine

Just one problem Ron. Bunker fuel is dirt cheap. I am talking $2/barrel. Using NG would cause shipping cost to increase by a factor of 4 or 5. Nuclear powered ships would be better if there was a way to ensure that no nuclear materials got into the hands of terrorists. That is the kind of thing the UN should be able to regulate. After all, they already have weapons inspectors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

No, but what choice do we have?  Corporations such a Forbes need to get their act together.  If one article can TAKE DOWN THE COMPANY(!), then they are doing many things wrong.  Grow a pair, Forbes (and all you other ninnies out there).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

 

 

Ron you just spoke out against censorship and now your thanking them ... sorry the joke wrote itself!

No.  If you paid attention, you would have seen that Ron had inadvertently started a more or less duplicate thread, and asked an Admin to delete it.  No censorship, self or otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.