It's Climate Change I tell'ya!! IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
what a fucking shell game
phys.org
Millions of carbon credits are generated by overestimating forest preservation, study finds
The majority of carbon offset schemes are significantly overestimating the levels of deforestation they are preventing, according to a study published in Science.
REDD+ schemes generate carbon credits by investing in the protection of sections of the world's most “important” forests—from the Congo to the Amazon basin. These credits represent the carbon that will no longer be released through deforestation.what a fucking shell game
Millions of carbon credits are generated by overestimating forest preservation, study finds
The majority of carbon offset schemes are significantly overestimating the levels of deforestation they are preventing, according to a study published in Science.
The latest study looked in detail at 18 REDD+ projects in five tropical countries: Peru, Colombia, Cambodia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Well, the DRC (The Congo) straddles the equator, so technically about 1/3 of it is in the northern hemisphere I guess, but all of the other countries listed are all in the southern hemisphere. Isn’t that a little weird? I hear that Canada and Russia both are fairly big places with some trees….they may not be the most “important” forests depending on the criteria I guess also, but they are freaking huge. Maybe they don’t count because neither Canada or Russia has a logging industry?
Grasslands and cereal crops blow forests out of the water for carbon sequestering. Not not mention more life per sq meter.
Funny thing abut forests. Back in high school science class, we were told that young vibrant forests produce more oxygen than decadent old growth, and old growth actually uses O2 at night. Now, the globull warming truthers are claiming that old growth sequesters more carbon than second or third growth. Sort of true, until the old decadent trees start to rot and release carbon. But that doesn't fit their dogma.
The Earth is slowly warming, partly due to carbon dioxide emissions. This will have some negative impacts and push humanity to adapt. But climate change isn’t the dreaded emergency that some alarmist activists and politicians would have you believe.
This is the message from an important and credible group of climate scientists, including climatologist Judith A. Curry, who has testified before U.S. Congress more than 10 times.
Curry provides what I see as the thinking woman’s guide to climate uncertainty. Her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response, came out in June. I interviewed her just before then.
If you are wondering about her credentials, Curry got her Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Her thesis was on clouds and Arctic sea ice. She worked as a professor for decades and was chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology from 2002 to 2014.
In the 1990s, Curry became concerned with activist scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created to provide advice to policymakers on climate science.
The first IPCC report in 1990 rightly talked about the uncertainties around climate science, Curry said. But that quickly changed. Curry felt activist scientists at the IPCC were letting their politics drive their scientific conclusions, leading them to too much certainty when it came to making doom-and-gloom consensus statements around climate change.
It became more difficult for a scientist to get grants if they failed to go along with that same narrative, Curry said. “The activists were starting to play games with editorial boards so it was harder to get papers published in prestige journals. The academics who were interested in promoting their careers jumped on board. The academics who put personal and professional integrity first weren’t so quick to do that and they became marginalized.”
apple.news
I ask Curry about the much-repeated statement that 97 per cent of climate scientists agree on climate change.
The extent of any agreement is greatly over-stated, Curry said. The 97 per cent figure comes out of activist research, she said, that did not ask climate scientists their views, but drew conclusions from their research.
“What all scientists agree on is fairly limited — that the temperatures have been increasing, humans emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide has infra-red emissions spectra that helps warm the planet. Beyond that, on the most consequential issues, there’s significant disagreement as to what has caused the warming over the past century, what the climate of the 21st century looks like, whether warming is dangerous and whether restricting fossil fuel usage is going to promote human well-being in the 21st century.”
Those who push climate crisis narratives want political power, Curry said, but this has fractured the environmental movement, with grassroots green activists now fighting the installation of wind and solar farms. The climate crisis crowd, meanwhile, pushes solar and wind, even as these power systems cause environmental degradation and weaken the electricity grid while jacking up prices for consumers, she said.
The rest at the above link…
This is the message from an important and credible group of climate scientists, including climatologist Judith A. Curry, who has testified before U.S. Congress more than 10 times.
Curry provides what I see as the thinking woman’s guide to climate uncertainty. Her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response, came out in June. I interviewed her just before then.
If you are wondering about her credentials, Curry got her Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Her thesis was on clouds and Arctic sea ice. She worked as a professor for decades and was chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology from 2002 to 2014.
In the 1990s, Curry became concerned with activist scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created to provide advice to policymakers on climate science.
The first IPCC report in 1990 rightly talked about the uncertainties around climate science, Curry said. But that quickly changed. Curry felt activist scientists at the IPCC were letting their politics drive their scientific conclusions, leading them to too much certainty when it came to making doom-and-gloom consensus statements around climate change.
It became more difficult for a scientist to get grants if they failed to go along with that same narrative, Curry said. “The activists were starting to play games with editorial boards so it was harder to get papers published in prestige journals. The academics who were interested in promoting their careers jumped on board. The academics who put personal and professional integrity first weren’t so quick to do that and they became marginalized.”
David Staples: The thinking women's guide to climate change: No emergency, no need for alarm — Edmonton Journal
"This obsession with wind and solar, we're going to come to a reckoning pretty soon because it's just not going to work," Curry said
The extent of any agreement is greatly over-stated, Curry said. The 97 per cent figure comes out of activist research, she said, that did not ask climate scientists their views, but drew conclusions from their research.
“What all scientists agree on is fairly limited — that the temperatures have been increasing, humans emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide has infra-red emissions spectra that helps warm the planet. Beyond that, on the most consequential issues, there’s significant disagreement as to what has caused the warming over the past century, what the climate of the 21st century looks like, whether warming is dangerous and whether restricting fossil fuel usage is going to promote human well-being in the 21st century.”
Those who push climate crisis narratives want political power, Curry said, but this has fractured the environmental movement, with grassroots green activists now fighting the installation of wind and solar farms. The climate crisis crowd, meanwhile, pushes solar and wind, even as these power systems cause environmental degradation and weaken the electricity grid while jacking up prices for consumers, she said.
The rest at the above link…
Absolutely correct. But. . . (there's always a butt, and usually it's me). . .
1. Humans are good at crisis response, but bad at long-term planning. Thus, earlier is better.
2. Industry changes everything. Natural warming is one thing, but industrially-driven warming is likely to hit harder, faster, and deeper. Could be the difference between walking toward a cliff and sprinting toward a cliff.
3. Both climate alarmism and climate "meh"-ism reflect people's basic orientations.
4. "This is no time to panic." --Buzz Lightyear, Toy Story
"This is a PERFECT time to panic!" -- Sheriff Woody, Toy Story
From the same link two posts back now:
“What all scientists agree on is fairly limited — that the temperatures have been increasing, humans emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide has infra-red emissions spectra that helps warm the planet. Beyond that, on the most consequential issues, there’s significant disagreement as to what has caused the warming over the past century, what the climate of the 21st century looks like, whether warming is dangerous and whether restricting fossil fuel usage is going to promote human well-being in the 21st century.”
This isn’t to say fossil fuel use has no impact on extreme weather events. In a major heat wave, for example, she said it might raise the temperature one degree. “It’s a difference, but not a defining one.”
As for the future, Curry said the United Nations has now backed off its most alarmist prediction of as much as an 8.5 degree temperature rise by the end of the century. It now says global warming will cause a rise of about 2.5 degrees, with about half of this amount already having occurred, leaving a rise of 1.3 degrees still to come in the next eight decades.
“This is something that is a slow creep. We can slowly normalize what we’re doing.”
With nuclear power and new technology and design for cities and infrastructure, we can adapt to rising temperatures, but not if we tear down our power grid.
“This obsession with wind and solar, we’re going to come to a reckoning pretty soon because it’s just not going to work,” Curry said.
“I’m tremendously optimistic about the future, assuming that our politicians don’t manage to destroy our energy infrastructure. To me that’s the biggest risk we face right now.”
David Staples: The thinking women's guide to climate change: No emergency, no need for alarm — Edmonton Journal
"This obsession with wind and solar, we're going to come to a reckoning pretty soon because it's just not going to work," Curry said
Always interesting when the Nimbys and Bananas start infighting. Much like communists arguing over which Russian thug has the better brand of a bad idea.The Earth is slowly warming, partly due to carbon dioxide emissions. This will have some negative impacts and push humanity to adapt. But climate change isn’t the dreaded emergency that some alarmist activists and politicians would have you believe.
This is the message from an important and credible group of climate scientists, including climatologist Judith A. Curry, who has testified before U.S. Congress more than 10 times.
Curry provides what I see as the thinking woman’s guide to climate uncertainty. Her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response, came out in June. I interviewed her just before then.
If you are wondering about her credentials, Curry got her Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Her thesis was on clouds and Arctic sea ice. She worked as a professor for decades and was chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology from 2002 to 2014.
In the 1990s, Curry became concerned with activist scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created to provide advice to policymakers on climate science.
The first IPCC report in 1990 rightly talked about the uncertainties around climate science, Curry said. But that quickly changed. Curry felt activist scientists at the IPCC were letting their politics drive their scientific conclusions, leading them to too much certainty when it came to making doom-and-gloom consensus statements around climate change.
It became more difficult for a scientist to get grants if they failed to go along with that same narrative, Curry said. “The activists were starting to play games with editorial boards so it was harder to get papers published in prestige journals. The academics who were interested in promoting their careers jumped on board. The academics who put personal and professional integrity first weren’t so quick to do that and they became marginalized.”
I ask Curry about the much-repeated statement that 97 per cent of climate scientists agree on climate change.David Staples: The thinking women's guide to climate change: No emergency, no need for alarm — Edmonton Journal
"This obsession with wind and solar, we're going to come to a reckoning pretty soon because it's just not going to work," Curry said
The extent of any agreement is greatly over-stated, Curry said. The 97 per cent figure comes out of activist research, she said, that did not ask climate scientists their views, but drew conclusions from their research.
“What all scientists agree on is fairly limited — that the temperatures have been increasing, humans emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide has infra-red emissions spectra that helps warm the planet. Beyond that, on the most consequential issues, there’s significant disagreement as to what has caused the warming over the past century, what the climate of the 21st century looks like, whether warming is dangerous and whether restricting fossil fuel usage is going to promote human well-being in the 21st century.”
Those who push climate crisis narratives want political power, Curry said, but this has fractured the environmental movement, with grassroots green activists now fighting the installation of wind and solar farms. The climate crisis crowd, meanwhile, pushes solar and wind, even as these power systems cause environmental degradation and weaken the electricity grid while jacking up prices for consumers, she said.
The rest at the above link…
One thing I have noticed is that there are a lot of oilspitters that promote/funded by the nuke industry.
Which brings us to another of their nutty ideas. Around 20 years ago, tree huggers demanded that we stop using paper grocery bags because they might contain old growth trees. They are not wrong on this, but don't or won't understand the reasons. So, we went to plastic bags. Which are good from a food safe perspective, and most of us reused them for garbage bags. Now, the same nutters have decided that oil is bad, and we must use wood products to make paper straws and terrible tasting wood forks. And buy single use plastic bags to put our garbage in. So far, I haven't heard many concerns about the potential for old growth trees being used to make single use cutlery that mostly gets thrown in the garbage.
I’m up because the old dog needed to pee. Just killing some time until he decides that he’s done. Stumbled across this and it sounds just so soo sooo familiar…
www.youtube.com
Britain is responsible for 2% of global nightly emissions at 209,331 square kms…
Canada is responsible for 1.6% of these global emissions at almost 10,000,000 sq kms…at close to 50 times the size.
The United States are roughly similar (but a bit smaller) in sq area to Canada, but I’m assuming with a larger emissions responsibility….
But Canada is this global emissions supervillain that needs to flagellate itself under Trudeau for the UN IPCC Greta inspiring bullshit?
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Canada is responsible for 1.6% of these global emissions at almost 10,000,000 sq kms…at close to 50 times the size.
The United States are roughly similar (but a bit smaller) in sq area to Canada, but I’m assuming with a larger emissions responsibility….
But Canada is this global emissions supervillain that needs to flagellate itself under Trudeau for the UN IPCC Greta inspiring bullshit?
I love the "China is leading the way" argument. I wonder if she was mentalfloss? A country which is still building coal power plants weekly is not leading the way anywhere.
The only people I have ever heard use it are these zero oil people. One can infer the direction and destination from that context.
Really puts the rush to Net Zero in perspective. I thought Canada was leading the way as an example to other nations as to what NOT to do in crippling its economy for no relevant difference whatsoever.
LILLEY: Guilbeault criticizes Canada from Beijing but silent on China — Toronto Sun
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault calls out Canadian companies and regulators while visiting emissions-leading China
Yeah, well, windjammers don't emit all that much smoke, y'know?
But if all you're interested in is witlessly bashing China, you could point out that in 100,000 years the entire human species emitted less carbon than China does in a week.
But if all you're interested in is witlessly bashing China, you could point out that in 100,000 years the entire human species emitted less carbon than China does in a week.
True. You are correct. I concur with your assessment of the situation. It gets nowhere.
China is used as perspective to the US or Britain or Canada, etc…in this Net Zero economic gamesmanship. What other nation should be used instead. I’m open to suggestions & we all have Google….& it’s (Google) not yet censoring Canadian originated news stories so it’s still effective for a while. What should be used for perspective?
True. You are correct. Why did they fall out of favour?
What relevance does that have to the non-DiCaprio’s or non-Trudeau’s in something like the 7000km wide (east to west) nation of Canada?
Land sailing - Wikipedia
Sailing Cargo Ships are Making a Genuine Comeback
Sailing cargo ships are making a genuine comeback. Japanese bulk carrier MOL is operating a wind-assisted ship. American food giant Cargill is working...
maritime-executive.com
Are you interested in pissing and moaning about who got the bigger piece of cake, or do you think reducing pollution and CO2 emissions is a desirable goal?True. You are correct. I concur with your assessment of the situation. It gets nowhere.
China is used as perspective to the US or Britain or Canada, etc…in this Net Zero economic gamesmanship. What other nation should be used instead. I’m open to suggestions & we all have Google….& it’s (Google) not yet censoring Canadian originated news stories so it’s still effective for a while. What should be used for perspective?
True. You are correct. Why did they fall out of favour?
What relevance does that have to the non-DiCaprio’s or non-Trudeau’s in something like the 7000km wide (east to west) nation of Canada?
Windjammer technology could supplement global transportation of goods & peoples near coastlines? Something else?Land sailing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sailing Cargo Ships are Making a Genuine Comeback
Sailing cargo ships are making a genuine comeback. Japanese bulk carrier MOL is operating a wind-assisted ship. American food giant Cargill is working...Is this where you’re going with the above statement?
Leonardo DiCaprio has no relevance to anything. Might as well get your medical advice from the bum on the corner.
Canada's geographical size has very little relevance to the pollution/emissions problem.
The fucking question is "What can the human species do to reduce harmful effects of its activities, while enjoying the fruits of our progress in technology, and at what cost?"
I absolutely guaran-fucking-tee you that pissing and moaning about China does nothing to resolve that question.
I think the question is how big a poison pill are we willing to take to fight climate change if the results of our action have little effect? If China was truly on board and was going to be taking the same pill together, then yes we should all just gulp and swallow. But if it is being sold as we need to take this pill to prevent the devastating fires, droughts, etc. (which is how its being sold) and us actually taking the pill has negligible results, then why should we take the pill?
China will do what China wants to do. There is little or nothing Canada, or anybody else, can do about that.
But if Canada cuts its emissions and China doesn't, that's still a net of less emissions globally. Then the question becomes "What tools to we have to encourage/influence/force China to cut its emissions?" Damn few and of limited effectiveness.
But the fact remains that if the industrialized West cuts its emissions, that's less emissions regardless of what China does. Whether and what level is worth doing at the cost is the topic for endless pissing and moaning.
But if Canada cuts its emissions and China doesn't, that's still a net of less emissions globally. Then the question becomes "What tools to we have to encourage/influence/force China to cut its emissions?" Damn few and of limited effectiveness.
But the fact remains that if the industrialized West cuts its emissions, that's less emissions regardless of what China does. Whether and what level is worth doing at the cost is the topic for endless pissing and moaning.