math problems? I don't have any math problems, unlike the climate change folk. Last year was the coldest year in my lifetime in saskatchewan. Oh that's right, because it's not global warming anymore is it? that's been proven shyt. It's climate change now, which happens every second in every climate on the globe and always has, so it can't be disproved.
Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
math problems? I don't have any math problems, unlike the climate change folk. Last year was the coldest year in my lifetime in saskatchewan. Oh that's right, because it's not global warming anymore is it? that's been proven shyt. It's climate change now, which happens every second in every climate on the globe and always has, so it can't be disproved.
Yes, you definitely have math problems. Last year was the coldest year in your lifetime in Saskatchewan? I doubt that's true, but even if it were, the fact that you find this to be a significant problem for climate change/global warming is a huge sign that you're not up to speed at all on the very basics of this issue. No scientist has ever said that there is not significant internal variability in the climate system. In fact, do you know why climate is defined as the average weather over a thirty year period? It's because of this variability.
I could get more sophisticated with trend analysis, and prediction intervals from long-term trends, but you're obviously not up to speed.
It's more appropriately called climate change because it's not just temperature that is changing you noob. And of course it can be disproved. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Logical fail again.
variability? yeah, the problem is that you guys try to pretend it's trending in a direction that it's not. every time anything happens, the morons make it out like it's because of climate change, even hurricanes, earthquakes, whatever, straight up bullshyt. Then when something proves them to be liars it's variability. Whatever. It's not variability you're just full of shyt.
If you actually want to debate the merits, or what you perceive to be weaknesses, in climate science, I suggest a more appropriate venue. Make notice of all the sticky threads:
Climate Change Forum | Free Online Discussion Forums
Yes, variability. Are you so daft that you will deny cycles in our climate that can be in the opposite sign, and with different magnitudes? Solar cyces, ocean cycles, etc.
Yep, you're over your head.
Climate Change Forum | Free Online Discussion Forums
Yes, variability. Are you so daft that you will deny cycles in our climate that can be in the opposite sign, and with different magnitudes? Solar cyces, ocean cycles, etc.
Yep, you're over your head.
Heard of this Guy: Nikola Tesla? (Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
"Tesla demonstrated wireless energy transfer to power electronic
devices in 1891, and aspired to intercontinental wireless
transmission of industrial power in his unfinished
Wardenclyffe Tower project."
See: SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY,
Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 645,576, Mar. 20, 1900.
But: War of Currents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
There was even a recent thread about space-based electrical generation for our earthly consumption:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/103157-orbital-solar-power-plants-touted.html
No, I believe variability is why you morons initially made your false case. And, invariably, why your case can be seen as so false now. It's no different than the banksters (that fund you morons). When there are bubbles they try to explain it with complicated financial lingo. The truth is that they know that they'll get bailed out so they take risks they shouldn't. it's not complicated. It's the same with climate change. Yeah , the overall world climate is complicated and not well understood by laymen, but it's not hard to understand that we've been lied to and why. There is motive for your lies. that and it's been proven with climategate that it's all lies anyways. follow the money. I don't need to have a doctorate in climatology to know that the people giving the data lied about it and have forcefully colluded to deny opposing view points. I kow that for sure. 100%. They said so themselves in their emails
No, last year (2010) was warmer than average across Canada including the Praries. In fact, globally, 2010 was the third warmest year in 150 years.
Now, 2009 was the coldest year in Saskatchewan in 27 years.
Environment Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Canada's Top Ten Weather Stories for 2009 - Enduring Prairie Cold Ends Dramatically
Conspiracy theories is all you have...I guess it's too bad we can't see the emails of the scientists who pioneered climate science:
Joseph Fourier first discovered what we now call the greenhouse effect, in the early 1820's:
Joseph Fourier: The Greenhouse Effect, first edition
John Tyndall, 1861, On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of radiation, Absorption and Conduction.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Canadian Physicist Gilbert Plass, in the 1950's, read his Wikipedia profile:
Gilbert Plass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No internet back then, but assuredly they must have been conspiring to raise taxes on us in the next century and a half. :roll:
Last winter was awful. It was freezing cold almost every day and we even had a very cold spring, lots of rain, and hardly any 30 degree days in summer at all. I can tell you, 100%, that in southern saskatchewan, we are easily coming off of the coldest winter/spring/summer of my lifetime. Fall was nice though, maybe global warming is happening!!!!
I don't care. I read their emails from wikileaks when they came out. That's all I need. I can't confirm or deny science on any side of the debate. I can tell you who's funding your side. I can tell you that they were caught in a lie. That's all I need.
No. well, I can make it through some posts. not all of them.
I worked outdoors most of last winter. It sucked. That wasn't a
warm winter by anyones (boots on the ground) first hand
experience out here. Winter lasted long into spring, and
summer was cool with a few exceptions.
Retarded questions like "has there been a reduction in energy consumption by putting a price tag on air" or "where is the money going" ?
Come next week "marketing boards that help farmers market their product without being gouged by large companies" are toast because you've been too busy wanking your greenie weenie and not paying attention to the real issues.
And you want to dish out more money for things like transit into the far reaching burbs which indeed is urban sprawl.
Give you head shake! You fight tooth and nail for your damaging, unsustainable industry but it's "go **** yourself" when it comes to mine and other's?
Of course you don't, that's what separates skeptics from conspiracy theorist deniers.
And of course you wouldn't care if they were cleared of fraud in court and a host of other inquiries.
There's no reasoning with folks like yourself.
Why can't you produce energy reduction data sets that are linked to Carbon Taxes?
Is that a conspiracy theory too?
Short on money? Try carbon taxes instead of western oil money.
P.E.I. says it gets $42m too little in equalization | The Chronicle Herald
Is that a conspiracy theory too?
Short on money? Try carbon taxes instead of western oil money.
P.E.I. says it gets $42m too little in equalization | The Chronicle Herald
Nice try on the deniers thing. This is what green nazis do. They use the term "denier" to illicit a comparison to Nazi sympathizing holocaust deniers. As if the issue is remotely similar. It's very irresponsible.
And you're right. there is no reasoning with me. I know you're full of shyt so no matter how you try to justify it with any of the crap you are saying, I won't believe you.
you have to understand the system and that's your problem. You think because a friendly panel of friends cleared them of wrong doing that they did nothing wrong. Well, OJ was cleared of wrong doing to. Would you trust him? I read their emails. I don't care what anyone found about them, cleared or not, I can make up my own mind. they lied about the data and colluded to defund and fire opposing scientists. That is 100% undeniably true no matter who says the sky isn't blue it will always be true.
No, retarded question like a tax on air. I've shown where the money goes, but you dug your head into the sand, and denied basic math. I told you there hasn't been a reduction in energy from those taxes, and I even hinted at why, but I don't see much point in discussing it with you when you ask silly questions or build straw men, or put the fate of marketing boards on my actions. I didn't take you as someone who relied on others. I've been wrong before. I've written letters to my MP, the Minister, and Prime Minister. I've encouraged others to do the same. I even stood up for the boards at work when people in the lunch room were bemoaning the price of dairy and poultry.
You deny simple truths, I have no reason to believe you won't accept more complicated issues, or go off on one of your weird tangents.
That's because your behaviour is comparable...:study:..denial is denial. A spade is a spade.
:roll: I already told you that the tax hasn't lead to energy reduction. Are you incapable of having a two-way discussion?
It's a longer-term goal than three years for one (2020), and a few cents extra doesn't really make alternatives much better.
Your tax scheme is bull****, your blame shifting of Carbon Tax mismanagement is pathetic, blaming corporations you own through public interest is a nutter's quest in futilty, insistance of more taxation reduces inflation is a miscaclulation of epic proportion, and writing letters trying to stop what was set in motion while you were in grade school is a huge joke leaving deregualted egg on your face all while promoting an unsustainable, disease laden fish farming industry makes you look rather retarded and hypocritical.
Durban deforestation agreement promotes transparency, scientific verification
Climate negotiators in South Africa struck a preliminary deal on forestry over the weekend, advancing a technical document that lays out what could be the first real 'rules of the road' for initiatives that seek to reduce greenhouse gases by curbing deforestation in tropical countries.
First, a little necessary background. Deforestation is responsible for roughly 15% of global carbon emissions, and the idea is that some of the money spent on reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions could be funneled into forest-protection programmes. As envisioned, such initiatives would reduce emissions while preserving biodiversity, protecting freshwater resources and putting some money in the pockets of the rural poor. Pretty much everybody likes the idea, but to make it happen, we first need baselines so that all parties agree on how many trees are coming down — and, more importantly, how much carbon dioxide is going up.
This is where the new agreement comes in. Among other things, the language proposed by a technical working group on Saturday says that developing countries must calculate their baselines in terms of carbon-dioxide emissions — as opposed to hectares — and then submit them for a kind of international peer review before they become final. Assuming the language moves forward, both requirements would increase transparency and make it easier for scientists, investors and other countries to verify the numbers.
"It's the best thing that has been done since Bali," says John O. Niles, director of the Tropical Forest Group in San Diego, referring to the 2007 climate talks in Indonesia that formally put deforestation on the agenda. "Before countries would submit reference levels, but now the text says countries will submit proposed reference levels," he adds. "That one word makes a huge difference."
In UN-speak, the concept is known as REDD, for 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation', and it has been one of the few bright spots in difficult negotiations in recent years. Environmentalists say that the new agreement could have gone further to spell out various environmental and social safeguards, but there was nonetheless a collective sigh of relief after a week of difficult negotiations that went down to the deadline.
Nature News: Durban deforestation agreement promotes transparency, scientific verification
Good news!
Climate negotiators in South Africa struck a preliminary deal on forestry over the weekend, advancing a technical document that lays out what could be the first real 'rules of the road' for initiatives that seek to reduce greenhouse gases by curbing deforestation in tropical countries.
First, a little necessary background. Deforestation is responsible for roughly 15% of global carbon emissions, and the idea is that some of the money spent on reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions could be funneled into forest-protection programmes. As envisioned, such initiatives would reduce emissions while preserving biodiversity, protecting freshwater resources and putting some money in the pockets of the rural poor. Pretty much everybody likes the idea, but to make it happen, we first need baselines so that all parties agree on how many trees are coming down — and, more importantly, how much carbon dioxide is going up.
This is where the new agreement comes in. Among other things, the language proposed by a technical working group on Saturday says that developing countries must calculate their baselines in terms of carbon-dioxide emissions — as opposed to hectares — and then submit them for a kind of international peer review before they become final. Assuming the language moves forward, both requirements would increase transparency and make it easier for scientists, investors and other countries to verify the numbers.
"It's the best thing that has been done since Bali," says John O. Niles, director of the Tropical Forest Group in San Diego, referring to the 2007 climate talks in Indonesia that formally put deforestation on the agenda. "Before countries would submit reference levels, but now the text says countries will submit proposed reference levels," he adds. "That one word makes a huge difference."
In UN-speak, the concept is known as REDD, for 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation', and it has been one of the few bright spots in difficult negotiations in recent years. Environmentalists say that the new agreement could have gone further to spell out various environmental and social safeguards, but there was nonetheless a collective sigh of relief after a week of difficult negotiations that went down to the deadline.
Nature News: Durban deforestation agreement promotes transparency, scientific verification
Good news!