Exactly.
Sometimes I think this whole global warming thing is my fault.
I did all 51 things.
Exactly.
Sometimes I think this whole global warming thing is my fault.
I did all 51 things.
Some of the basic facts are undeniable. The earth has warmed extremely rapidly in the past 100 years. CO2 levels have increased rapidly in the past 100 years. These two changes are affecting the climate.
Easy to explain. There are hundreds of billions in subsidies being paid for with taxpayer money to fund initiatives based on the belief that a far lower concentration of atmospheric CO2 than has existed in the past is suddenly causing climate changes that have occurred with and without such CO2 in the past. Any company, oil, or otherwise, has a responsibility to its shareholders to belly up to the trough when public money is being tossed around. Plus it is good public relations to cater to movements that have broad popular support, even when those initiatives have spurious premises. For example, you rely on a paper that started the whole 97% consensus myth whose primary author is a former cartoonist without any PhD in any relative area of study. Millions of others do as well, and the fact it is bilgewater doesn't change your support. So why wouldn't Exxon cater to you since you no doubt are a consumer of energy.What I don't understand is the argument that the push for accepting climate change is coming from those expecting to make money from it. I don't deny this is not the case, but the green energy company lobbyists would be grossly overpowered by the present oil/mining/transport companies. Now many of the oil companies are accepting that man-made climate change is real and are advocating for reducing CO2 emmisions.
They are winning the argument, simply because little of what has been predicted has occurred.If you apply the often used phrase "follow the money", in this case the big money is on the climate change denialists side of the argument. Why aren't they winning the argument?
Greetings,
Mr. 9. Greenland is Greenland thanks to clever marketing. Eric wanted company...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/
Greetings,
Mr. 9. "That doesn't answer my very specific question though." Ya' noticed that huh? Depends on who you believe or want to believe...This abstract uses enough "wiggle words" that it could be interpreted in several ways.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110000399
It is true that ice around the edges of Greenland has been retreating, but this is offset by increases in ice in the interior. Currently, at least according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the ice mass is quickly growing relative to the average a few years ago, reversing a macro trend of mass loss that began with the end of the last Ice Age, and a much shorter term loss that accelerated after the end of the last Little Ice Age around 1800. Apparently CO2 enrichment causes ice loss, until it doesn't, even when the concentration has been increasing. Puzzling, don't you think?Hi,
Tony Fleming's web page. The picture is a Greenland glacier change, followed for a long time. Writing is Tony's
"This beauty has a sinister side because it is evidence of the rate at which ice is being lost from the Greenland icecap which covers 80% of the country. The icecap is subject to an enormous amount of ongoing, in-depth, research from which the current estimate of annual loss of ice is estimated at 269 billion tonnes. The accompanying map illustrates the rate of loss of ice from the Greenland icecap The world-wide implications are enormous and anyone who denies this is happening is deluding themselves. Minimum sea ice in the Arctic is generally expected at September 10th each year. 2016 has the second lowest amount of sea ice on record and the rate of loss is accelerating."
NBs
What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
That bastion of deniers everywhere, National Geographic, says you're wrong.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/
From the article:
So How Did the Names Get Switched?
A glance at the globe might make you wonder why Iceland seems oddly green, while Greenland is covered in ice. There’s even an Internet meme about it.
Schoolyard wisdom says this was intentional—Iceland’s Viking settlers thought the name would discourage oversettlement of their verdant island, while nobody cared if people tried to settle the ice-covered Greenland. But the truth is more complicated, and it has to do with both Norse custom and our shifting global climate.
The Facts
The current names come from the Vikings. Norse custom was to name a thing as they saw it. For instance, when he saw wild grapes (blackberries, probably) growing on the shore, Erik the Red’s son, Leif Eríksson, named a portion of Canada “Vinland.”
Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped. Lower temperatures meant fewer crops and more sea ice, forcing the local Norse population to abandon their colonies.
But, all of that aside, that doesn't answer my very specific question though. What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
It seems many TF members are climate change denialists ( or at least deny that it is caused by the human race).
?
How funny. You hold up peer review as a gold standard of Truth, then reject a peer reviewed study because you disagree with it, or don't understand what it says. You must be a climate scientist.
And now, I will bow out of this discussion with one final post. If any of you are really, truly interested in climate change, and the history of how the scientific world has arrived at near-unanimous agreement that it's real, and that it's in large part man-made, read this article:
https://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M0465
It will take you a long time to get through it, but if you do, you should, at the very least, end up with a much more informed viewpoint on how we go to the current point in the climate change argument.
I'm out!
A favorite meme of climate alarmists is that opposing the idea the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are as big an issue as they make it out to be is because there is money in being what they call a "denier". We're told to follow the money, and that is always good advice. So, in that spirit, a bill is being introduced in Congress by our new democratic majority to impose a carbon tax that within 5 years will be at $55/ton. The money will go to the EPA and various government agencies to fight manmade global warming. So, how much money do we find when we follow that trail?
Well, since the U.S. per capita carbon emissions are at 16.5 tons, that means that every man, woman and child in the country would pay around $900 per year to the feds. Multiply that by the population and you have around $300 billion per year in revenue to fund government employees, pensions, healthcare, vacations, nice offices, etc. etc.
So what do you think? Is $300 billion a year worth promoting the notion that CO2 is a deadly gas? I think so.
https://www.atr.org/details-horrible-carbon-tax-bill