An idea for your consideration.

[bluedragon]

Australian ???

You've got no taste...

Just pullin yer leg...

I like it! LOL!

I put New Zealand First! It is my favorite by far....

It honestly is my favorite and Australian second. I took a new job as a Product Sales Manager (that's two jobs wrapped in one and sold to people stupid enough to do both and get paid for only one) ....My staff was seven people. Six women and one man. One of the women introduces herself in this manner "My name is Tammy zzzzz with y" "And my accent is Australian not British." Since she was the last ...my response back was "Well, Tammy with a Y, immediately that tells me there is a Tammy with an I in the building, Is she someone I need to know about?" "President's Secretary" "I'll make note of that. Considering that all my Representatives in Canada were native Britain's and my daughter's favorite movie is Crocodile Dundee, my favorite TV series Crocodile Hunter ....I think I can tell the difference between a British and Australian accent. Especially when Australian is one of my favorites ..." I then went backwards to the first introduction and commented on each person. They were amazed that I recalled every name and when I held my notepad up and nothing was written on it ....more astonished. That seemed to form a bond that they needed since the turnover rate at that seat was ridiculous.

 

[bluedragon]

News flash!

PhD in Climatology" are presumed to invalidate one's right to vote - and live well.

Most of these guys and gals don't have a PHD in Climatology, since the title didn't exist until a decade or so ago. Some degree processing outfit had to create one to make it seem professional. Besides ...That means in order to keep the PHD, one has to write and present several papers a year. Most are written in haste, because of a timeline and not very creative or informative. And if you can withstand sitting while one is presented ...I think the observer needs to earn college credits for the torture ....

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hi Pearl,

The other periods of "climate change" was a mini-ice age about 1650 with another about 1770 and the last one in 1850! Also, where the Mendenhall glacier is now was once a forest of trees about 1,000 years ago. Not sure why the climate change believers think that what we are experiencing now is such a big deal. It is just climate HISTORY repeating itself.

Respectfully, Mary

Hi Mary. Respects to you, also. However, a few years of colder winters than normal does not an Ice Age make. And it's not a case of 'believing in climate change' the way some people still believe in a flat earth, despite the evidence to the contrary. It is more a case of being persuaded by some unpalatable truths about where the Earth is headed, and how long we have left to enjoy our current, benign climate, before we wreck it for good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Brakelite]

I have to say, I am disappointed in you all thus far. You all may not like to admit it, but the fact is, the science is in and inescapable. Climate change is happening, and happening now, as witnessed by the shrinking polar ice-caps and the steady retreat of the worlds glaciers. Meanwhile, none of you seem to care one whit for the vulnerable poor who will be the front line victims of this sad state of affairs. When you are ready to discuss this, so am I. Until you are, I am not. It would be a waste of my time, and yours. Meanwhile, I will leave you with this thought; that such wisdom as remains to us lies in hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And there you have confirmed Mark's position. Claiming the moral high ground while defending your so called science. The science is not "in". There are numerous scientific voices in the world disputing there is any major catastrophe on it's way threatening man's extinction. The panic... The fear... The media hype and pretence surrounding what is a negligible change in climate and the false posturing and virtue signaling of people like Trudeau and Adern and other politicians promoting CO² cuts and associated taxes will make even less negligible impact on changing the current situation.

 

[Philip James]

It is more a case of being persuaded by some unpalatable truths about where the Earth is headed, and how long we have left to enjoy our current, benign climate, before we wreck it for good.

Asserting 'unpalatable truths' that have no basis in reality is just shameless propaganda..

The second law of thermodynamics remains valid last time I checked which destroys the 'greenhouse gas' hypothesis...

Psst.. Slower cooling is not warming..


Pax et Bonum

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary. Respects to you, also. However, a few years of colder winters than normal does not an Ice Age make. And it's not a case of 'believing in climate change' the way some people still believe in a flat earth, despite the evidence to the contrary. It is more a case of being persuaded by some unpalatable truths about where the Earth is headed, and how long we have left to enjoy our current, benign climate, before we wreck it for good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you. I never said "Ice Age". There was only one recognized "Ice Age" and that was 180,000 years ago. It is common language/practice to call that THE Ice Age and the other three I mentioned a "mini ice age"...NOT "colder winters than normal".

The temperature fluctuates. BEFORE the industrial revolution the earth was much warmer than it is now AND much colder than it is now. The earths temperature fluctuates and we are POSSIBLY in a fluctuation now. That does not mean we shouldn't stop finding ways to prevent pollution...but at what cost?

 

[2ndRateMind]

.. The earths temperature fluctuates and we are POSSIBLY in a fluctuation now. That does not mean we shouldn't stop finding ways to prevent pollution...but at what cost?...

Whatever the cost, it is bound to be less than altering the Earth's climate and rendering much of its land mass unproductive and uninhabitable, not to mention the increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Marymog]

Whatever the cost, it is bound to be less than altering the Earth's climate and rendering much of its land mass unproductive and uninhabitable, not to mention the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The ice age was an extreme weather event. How did man cause that?

The 3 mini ice ages were extreme weather events. How did men cause those?

The earth was warm enough 1,000 years ago that there was a forest under what is NOW the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska. What did man do 1,000 years ago to cause that "intensity of extreme weather"?

Where is the evidence that there was not an era of "extreme weather events" 1,000 years ago? 2,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago? For man to think that this short little 100 year span of weather data over the millions of years we have been on this earth is good scientific practice....they are not being realistic. Only scare mongoers.....Have you fallen for it?

 

[bluedragon]

Whatever the cost, it is bound to be less than altering the Earth's climate and rendering much of its land mass unproductive and uninhabitable, not to mention the increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Then why has every country in Europe failed at meeting the fantasy Paris goals of CO2 emissions?

Why has the United States met the goals set for us .....but your government has failed ?

Getting colder and more expensive to live in Great Britain these days?

The science has become a fraud. There is no solution for the myth, the UN has admitted such ...

 

[2ndRateMind]

...Have you fallen for it?

Yup. Hook, line and sinker. As has the credible majority of scientists, and our more responsible politicians and sensible journalists.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Then why has every country in Europe failed at meeting the fantasy Paris goals of CO2...

The goal is to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels at 2050. There is quite some distance to travel yet. We could, of course, go further, faster, were it not for economic vested interests and the cynical unbelief of climate-change deniers.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[bbyrd009]

And there you have confirmed Mark's position. Claiming the moral high ground while defending your so called science. The science is not "in". There are numerous scientific voices in the world disputing there is any major catastrophe on it's way threatening man's extinction. The panic... The fear... The media hype and pretence surrounding what is a negligible change in climate and the false posturing and virtue signaling of people like Trudeau and Adern and other politicians promoting CO² cuts and associated taxes will make even less negligible impact on changing the current situation.

but note snopes disclaimer…in passing, i guess; not much there imo

 

[Philip James]

As has the credible majority of scientists, and our more responsible politicians and sensible journalists.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh man.

When they get serious about the final solutuion, to decrease the world's population,
I'm sure they'll be quite willing to go first... Lol NOT

 

[bluedragon]

The goal is to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels at 2050. There is quite some distance to travel yet. We could, of course, go further, faster, were it not for economic vested interests and the cynical unbelief of climate-change deniers.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The goal cannot be reached, because the temp will not rise to that level. The UN has already admitted such.

Russia, China, India and every Dictatorship in the world thumbs their nose at this fantasy of the west. All it's doing is destroying economies immediately. Sri Lanka was the model for this fantasy. The government collapsed and suddenly the WEF takes Sri Lanka off their website as the model for the future. Gana, failed, other models failing

This fantasy will collapse when the populations have had enough. Then all the believers can go home and cry while the rest of the world works to solve their problems created by "science".

California announced they will ban all fossil fuel cars by 2025. No fossil fuel power production. Silly insanity when faced with drought all around them and the hydro's in dire trouble. California is planning of closing three huge hydro plants by the end of the year. Throw in a bankrupt PG&E Utility that starts a fire that rages for weeks and California is prime for collapse. Instead of doing stupid things, California better figure out how to build nuclear plants within five years. Excuse me ....three years. Nuclear is the only saving grace for California.

 

[Taken]

As I understand the situation, it is not methane from cows, but CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels that is the major threat.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Did you ever think men using fossil fuels was Gods Plan?

John 18:
[18] And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Did you ever think men using fossil fuels was Gods Plan?

Definately, while humanity was dragging itself out of the agricultural age through the industrial revolution. But you can have too much of a good thing. And I think that is where we are with the modern use of coal and oil and natural gas.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

The goal cannot be reached, because the temp will not rise to that level. The UN has already admitted such.

Russia, China, India and every Dictatorship in the world thumbs their nose at this fantasy of the west. All it's doing is destroying economies ... Nuclear is the only saving grace for California.

Good post. I need to do some research before I answer it. You can help with this by citing your sources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[dev553344]

So, we face climate change. Doubtless the wealthy west will survive. But the poor in Africa, Latin America, and southern Asia face some tough times ahead. Given this situation what is the appropriately ethical response? I have some ideas, but before I launch into them, I want to open up the forum to your thoughts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well the real problem is that we have no real alternative to fossil fuel. The great physicists that lead us into our current technology (Einstein, Maxwell, Planck among a few) were done with their theories by the 1900's. We need a continuation of those ideas, someone to expand on those ideas so that experimentalists can find an energy solution that works.

I don't really see any other solutions to our problem.

But I will echo this here. When I searched the weather channel today I saw that there have been 5 1 in 1,000 year floods in the last 5 weeks across the USA. And that means 5 of these floods that are only supposed to happen every 1,000 years have happened. And that shouldn't be happening. It may very well be that we are seeing real evidence of global warming.

"In the last five weeks, five areas across the United States have all experienced what should have been very unlikely -- if not impossible -- one in 1,000-year flooding events." https://www.accuweather.com/en/seve...ear-flood-event-in-us-since-late-july/1236445

 

[bluedragon]

Good post. I need to do some research before I answer it. You can help with this by citing your sources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The UN excused China and India from signing the pact with the cult. Russia has decided to not abide in the requirements on their own. China has 50 contracts for new coal fired power plants. India recently opened their coal mines again. Germany has decided to open several coal plants in an attempt to keep their populations from freezing this winter. If everyone would gang up together and think nuclear, that would solve the issue. But the cut doesn't want nuclear. They have false impression that wind just requires WIND. Wind is like solar, it requires an up line power plant that feeds a transmission line, that runs alongside the wind or solar farm. Wind and solar feed the transmission line and the power goes downstream. Without a power plant, there is no wind or solar power generated.

 

[Taken]

Definately, while humanity was dragging itself out of the agricultural age through the industrial revolution. But you can have too much of a good thing. And I think that is where we are with the modern use of coal and oil and natural gas.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Not sure what you mean, humanity dragging itself out of the ag age.
Our ‘modern’ food supply is horrible, housing with people crammed in cracker boxes in the cities...ewee.
I’m not against fossil fuels, electric, or the unsightly wind and solar, on individual private property...(as well as agriculture) ... freewill as one chooses.

Glory to God,
Taken