Greta Thunberg how dare you

More Greta cringe... must :upvote:

Though it must be said... 3iesu8.jpg (click to show)

lol no.

Not about everything, but about the main thing, which is that we are cooking ourselves to death.

Taxing people ain't going to help.

There is plenty we can do to help, including through taxation.

Imposing a carbon tax (the solution I most favor) is in my opinion the cleanest and simplest way to get people to really think about their environmental impact, and we wouldn't have to ban any activity. It's a market-driven solution favored by conservative and moderate economists who do not deny science.

When climate scientists have been caught falsifying data, the 'denying science' bit wears a little thin. So, you can pollute the environment as long as you can afford it?

How about cleaning up the islands of plastic floating in the ocean so at least that could be pointed too as a positive result of change?

Unfortunately we can't control the sun and solar flares or erupting volcanos. Or India and China.

Once upon a time there was a boy who cried wolf.
Then he got killed.

The end.

...

Your paragraphs in a nutshell:

1. Unsupported allegations
2. Changing the subject
3. Premature declarations of defeat

To respond to one of your points: Yes, a carbon tax allows you to pollute the environment so long as the economic benefits outweigh the environmental cost. But under our current system without a carbon tax, people and businesses can pollute to their heart's content even if the cost outweighs the benefit.

Realistically, human beings are going to cause some pollution. But: with a carbon tax we can stop the pollution that is not economically beneficial or which can be cheaply and easily stopped. This is a more realistic approach than supposing that we can ever make all human activity 100% clean.

No, we can't control solar flares or volcanoes, but we can control the portion of warming that we are responsible for. Which the aggregate result of hundreds of studies and thousands upon thousands of readings (setting aside unsupported allegations of "falsified data") tells us is the main culprit.

Carbon tax in the US and Europe = all jobs go to China

China has 1 billion people who stand to be severely impacted by climate change. Their government is obviously flawed but they are at least led by smart people who understand science. They'll get on board with fighting climate change if we do -- and they're already building a lot more green infrastructure than we are.

The idea we'll lose "all our jobs" to China is just hyperbolic fear-mongering rhetoric. And you are the ones accusing us of fear-mongering.

lol no. They had an opportunity to get into the Paris climate accord. Didn't take it. They are not building clean coal plants at all.
I'm not "fear-mongering" I'm explaining a basic economic principle. If costs are higher here to run a business. The businesses will move to where they are cheaper like China with no carbon taxes and 0% business tax*
*As long as they sign 51% of their ownership to the Chinese government.

according to you; we are free the pollute the environment as long we pay for carbon tax. doesn't that occur to you defeats the entire purpose of being environmentally friendly?

People and businesses will pollute a lot less once they realize they can reduce their emissions for less money than it costs to pay the tax.

Think about what, that they have to pay slightly extra on stuff that keeps going up in price anyways?
It's a feel good approach which accomplishes nothing but promote inaction.

The chart you posted shows dips, including now and in 2000, when 1999's peak reversed significantly enough to throw the term "Global Warming" out the window in favor of the sparkling new impossible to deny "Climate Change," since climate has been changing on Earth since it was part of a gaseous cloud that coalesced into our solar system nearly 5 billion years ago.
If it went back a few centuries more, it would have witnessed the Little Ice Age and the Medievel Warming Period (which was warmer than now, though not as warm as in previous interglacials). Number of CO2 spewing automobiles at those times and Gretas to stop them by yelling at people with no incentive to minimize their impact? Zero.

Taxes, speeches, rich girls from Central Park West cutting school on Fridays so they can waste electricity on their iPads all day instead might seem dandy, but the end effect is that this is the enviromental movement that calls for the least action because it points fingers at the "those people there" instead of looking at what WE as individuals can do to mitigate POLLUTION - which carbon dioxide is not.
In that regard it is also another massive failure - making CO2 the sole item of worry and not the rest of what we are poisoning the world with.

Besides, the REAL aim is carbon credits for the purpose of carbon trading, of which St Al Gore is not only a proponent of but the world's major stock holder in the world's biggest carbon trading market. Yes, Climate Change hysteria is nothing but an excuse for a new type of commodity - excess CO2. And we thought the derivatives market - hot potato trading risky mortgages and insurance policies to go with them - AKA toxic assets - was bad.

In the future look forward to garbage trading and then sewage.
Anything to make a buck, for profit, natch.

Global warming is not tidy, consistent, or uniform. To me the most significant period of stagnation on that chart was 1950 to about 1970. But the entire century's worth of temperature readings, and the 5-year smoothing curve, show clearly where this is going.

Polar bears ranged as far south as what is now New York during the last Ice Age.

During the interglacial of 140,000 yrs ago (been awhile, scuse me if I go that number wrong, but basically 2 interglacials previous to this one ago), the ice melted so much in the Artic that they almost went extinct. No humans causing global aything back then.

As they evolved out of brown bears becoming more aquatic, thing is, swimming ever increasing distances is what spurs and shapes their evolution on the road to becoming seals. Adaptation to the fluxes of that enviroment is what made them what they are.
Overfishing by humans poses a far greater threat to them and seals, cetaceans, seabirds, and whatever else that is imperiled up there.
REAL pollution is another problem. Despite being thousands of miles from industry, there is a village in Nunavut were no male humans are born due to PCBs. Beluga whales in the St Lawrence, for example, are known to have high concentrations of PCBs in their fat. It accumulates and gets passed up the food chain. Ways to remove it from bodies and that enviroment are zero. Predators at the top of the food chain are at the greatest risk.

Polar bears & co will die of starvation or such toxins way before lack of ice can significantly kill them.
But fishing is a big industry, and industrial discharge is a part of our lives, so it's easier to point to air rather than to real dangers to their future.

Global Warming is no longer a thing as of the year 2000 when it abruptly halted and did an about face defying projections.

Stagnation during the most rapid period of modernization, when the newly burgeoning middle class left cities in droves to drive around in their new cars out in their newly built suburbs commuting to manufacturing and service economy jobs a traffic jam away? The very thing that is currently entering China and India into the hothouse club? Add to that modernization all over the world thanks to the Marshall Plan, and yet temps stagnated, culminating in the 1970s foray into the return of the Ice Age with temps revisted in the 2000s?
I should be growing mangoes in the yard now.

Your points actually track pretty well with the chart I just cited, and poke holes in the theory. The global climate is a complex system. But: I draw a different conclusion. When you see all the data plotted out like this (data which has been aggregated from hundreds of scientists taking thousands upon thousands of readings over decades), the picture is clear.

Although you are right that the temperature rise stagnated in the 2000s, I wouldn't call it an "ice age" at all, and the temperature rise came roaring back in the 2010s.

We're currently at about 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Given what we know about the mechanism of the greenhouse gas effect, there's no reason to believe it's going to go down or level off. Just the opposite: it will keep rising.

Funny, was looking up what year (pretty recent) those British scientist got caught fudging data. Hard to find with all the stories about Amercan scientists doing the same.
(I'm rather ill now, can't be arsed scrolling through tons looking for one lie out of many)

But why lie in support of something that is supposed to be irrefutable?

Ice age in the 2000s? Did I miss something, because you did not get that from me.

The Ross Ice Shelf has melted to the degree that elephant seal bones have been found from breeding grounds 250 years ago. Elephant seals breed in ice free beaches. That means 250 years ago it was warmer than today, since the seals are not yet breeding there again.
Translation: we are not 1 dregree above pre-industrial temps.

Meanwhile, the rest of Antartica has been setting record cold temps, the glaciars thickening.

The data I said American scientists fudged? Southern South America, remote areas which showed a DOWNWARD trend in temps, altered to indicate the opposite.

Surrounded by places said to be dying in the wraths of big bad CO2, Cuba continues unscathed. From healthy coral reefs and 10 times as many sharks in its clear blue seas to the tiniest frogs and biggest snails in its forest.

That, however, is coming to an end thanks to Obama's easing our isolation of it.
Everything from future agricultural runoffs (fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, other toxins, plumes of sediment) to an ingredient in tanning lotion that promotes the growth of a certain virus afflicting coral will see that Cuba finally catched up with the rest of the Caribbean - the place on Earth, in fact, where coral die offs began back in the 1980s.

Perhaps Communism a la Cuba is the cure to Climate Change then?

lol. Well, you raise an interesting point, but I wouldn't say that Cuba is free from "global warming." At best, Cuba may be free from some of the localized environmental damage that accompanies modern industry. An interrelated but distinct environmental issue.

As conservatives are fond of saying, we could solve climate change if we returned to Stone Age technology. Well, yes and no. In theory, yes. That would solve the problem of industrial and agricultural emissions. But: billions and billions of humans would die of starvation or other causes since we'd be abandoning modern agriculture, in addition to modern medicine and tons of other stuff.

So, that's not something we should do. The Stone Age or Cuba are not models. The #1 challenge of our modern times is the need to find a way to integrate our cherished modern technology with the environmental limits of our earth.

And no, moving to the Moon or Mars or a space station or whatever isn't feasible, either. Because if we ever seriously have to evacuate planet Earth, even if we found the technological means to do so: again, billions and billions dead.

Of COURSE Cuba isn't free from Global Warming because Global Warming ended in 1999.
Wouldn't say is irrelevent. Specific facts are.

Hey, I'll make it easy for you: the Cuban Crocodile is danger due to invasive American Crocodiles who are driving them out/replacing them/eating them for dinner or even hybridizing with them. Maybe that has something to do with the gaz guzzling 1950s cars choking their streets and the acres of slash and burned forest now used to grow sugar cane?
Or maybe it is what it is, and invasive species eliminating the native one.

The curious thing is the Cuba model IS your solution, yet you argue against in favor of continuing industrial pollution.
I do not acknowledge the self-debunked phenomenon of Global Warming, yet here I am telling you how some have unintentionally taken action to counter it.
Ironic, isn't it?

Wait: I thought you and I pretty much agreed with the chart I posted, which shows that warming is neither tidy nor consistent, and sort of flat-lined in the 2000's but does show a sharp acceleration of warming beginning again in the 2010's -- are you challenging that now? On what basis?

"Accepting arguendo that every data point on that graph is true, we’re currently at heights of global temperature levels that have only been reached 3 times in the last 2000 years.

Further, the graph you just posted shows a sharp rise in temperatures within the last century which should still concern you. Making that sharp rise less obvious by obscuring it with more data does not erase it."

I was rushing and had not read the whole article.
But was referencing & questioning the validity of the "hockey stick graph," which would be represented by the section of broken red line extending towards today.
The black line is what it states is occuring.
It had said that it made adjustments according to data left out of the generally accepted hockey stick chart. Obviously that itself is subject to questioning, however it is an accepted fact that the MWP was warmer than today.

I'm generally against doing links, but I'll post that one tomorrow since it seem a worthwhile read but it's bookmarked in my other tablet.

"More to the point, you’ve proposed no scientific reason to doubt the greenhouse gas effect or anthropogenic CO2 emissions’ contribution to the same."

The fact that there were periods in the past where temps rose beyond those of today minus any possible anthropogenic contributions anywhere near the same levels plus the dip which occurred after 1999 causing a name change to Climate Change invalidates the concept of Global Warming.

"... it appears you are still determined to ignore what the overwhelming majority of scientists studying this issue are telling us. Why?"

Because I was never good at counting angels on the head of a pin and Appeals to Authority can make for some erroneous arguments, especially when tabulated findings from the relatively not-too-distant past display glaring holes in the hypothesis.

I'll be back in a few hours...

But it* was

I would say again that you're doing a good job poking holes in the theory. Honestly, I don't know what caused the MWP and the RWP. But: it's premature for you to declare victory just yet. The data you've presented does not "invalidate the concept of Global Warming," but at best permits a different conclusion. However: the theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the climatic changes we are experiencing today still holds. There is no other mechanism that fits the data as nicely.

As for "climate change" vs. "global warming" -- what exact catch phrase we use to describe the changes we are seeing is not all that important. If "climate change" was perhaps more accurate to say in the 2000s, when warming leveled off a bit, then "global warming" has returned in force with the readings taken in the 2010s.

What a lot of people don't understand about science is that it does not typically purport to offer be-all, end-all explanations (the way most religions do); instead, science constantly revises and even reverses its own conclusions as more data comes in. Scientists all around the globe including in remote and inhospitable places like Greenland and Antarctica are monitoring things very closely, and the vast majority of them are reporting warmer temps. No one can predict the future, but as of this moment, no other theory fits the data as well. As of right now, there's no excuse not to act to avoid living in a future world that is 2 or even upwards of 4 degrees Celsius warmer.

I followed the link, and appreciate you for bringing tangible debatable points to this discussion: however, I'm not sure it supports the propositions you cite it for. The authors appear to be just reporting results and aren't proposing any grand alternative theory to global warming. The authors even say this in the Abstract: "The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia." The article was published in 2010, so it's not cutting-edge anymore. I have no opinion on Geografiska Annaler, and it may be a fine journal, but it's no Science or Nature in terms of prestige. There are better sources out there.

Instead of a chart that goes back a mere 140 years, starting at the depths of the Little Ice Age for extra drama, I prefer this one going back 2000 years, displaying the Minoan & Roman Warming Periods, which as can be seen were warmer than today, despite the Industrial Age not being remotely imaginable, and with an exceedingly smaller population...

OOps, Roman Warming Period and Medievel Warming Period.
There was anotherchart I was looking at before this with what I has posted, but it cut off before modern times.

Accepting arguendo that every data point on that graph is true, we’re currently at heights of global temperature levels that have only been reached 3 times in the last 2000 years.

Further, the graph you just posted shows a sharp rise in temperatures within the last century which should still concern you. Making that sharp rise less obvious by obscuring it with more data does not erase it.

More to the point, you’ve proposed no scientific reason to doubt the greenhouse gas effect or anthropogenic CO2 emissions’ contribution to the same.

Your arguments against global warming are perhaps more sophisticated than anyone else’s I’ve encountered on this site, but it appears you are still determined to ignore what the overwhelming majority of scientists studying this issue are telling us. Why?

Here's the article.
Turns out it wasn't long...

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/paper-roman-medieval-warming-period.html

We Need to have Another World War, on this chart it shows a drop in the mid 1910s and late 40s

Yes indeedy.
Nothing can bring down C02 like bombing it.

nope. mother nature is showing signs that this planet is getting cooler, not warmer.