Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[jazz]

Couple things.

Of course we should be efficient. Reasonable fuel standards, emissions technology and market based renewables. All great, but that cant support our way of life. And I for one am not going back to caves. We need FF mix in there. More NG/LNG would be the way to go, etc.

Mann is the originator of the hockey stick graph 20 yrs ago. That has not happened. He is discredited based on that alone.

Lastly, Canada is already carbon negative. No climate barbie and grope boy wont tell you this, but if you properly account for canadas forests, fresh water, arable land and carbon sequestration by farmers, we are negative and are basically offsetting emissions from some nasty players like China.

The US withdrew from the Paris accord, didnt institute a carbon tax and they are the only country on the planet where emissions dropped.

Climate scientist are discredited as well, because they live and die by public grants, so they made up a hysteria to fund, made every single study about the effects of climate and watched the money roll in. Last time I checked, my lawyer, ag rep and accountant didnt get a govt grant sent to them.

[furrowtickler]

Not surprisingly not one post responds with any credible substantial science to dispute mann's evidence or conclusions.

What we get on Agriville is the predictable personal attacks, political rants and bluster along with an offer of Mark Steyn, an alt right conservative commentator as evidence against Mann and climate change science. Lame an uninformed.

Don't let science and evidence sway your opinions!

Don’t let science ruin common sense ....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Not surprisingly not one post responds with any credible substantial science to dispute mann's evidence or conclusions.

What we get on Agriville is the predictable personal attacks, political rants and bluster along with an offer of Mark Steyn, an alt right conservative commentator as evidence against Mann and climate change science. Lame an uninformed.

Don't let science and evidence sway your opinions!

Chuck, I could spend all day cutting and pasting evidence that refutes the rubbish you post, but what good would it do. You never respond to anything that factually discredits your cut and pastes. It is a waste of time preaching to the rest of the converted, and you obviously did not come here with an open mind willing to consider that your opinion may be wrong and that you would allow facts to convince you. You came to preach to the rest of us and tell us how stupid we must be since we don't agree with you, what is the point of wasting time trying to convince you of anything, I hate to guess how much time we have already wasted on this exercise, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind.

[burnt]

Not surprisingly not one post responds with any credible substantial science to dispute mann's evidence or conclusions.

What we get on Agriville is the predictable personal attacks, political rants and bluster along with an offer of Mark Steyn, an alt right conservative commentator as evidence against Mann and climate change science. Lame an uninformed.

Don't let science and evidence sway your opinions!

Hey, chucky, indeed, we need unbiased scientific discovery to lead development.

So, how many solar panels or wind turbines have you put up since they are readily available options to using carbon-based energy? (Just asking for a friend)

Since you believe in Michael Mann and Al Gore, I'm sure you must have quit using conventional energy a long time ago.

I admire your obvious self-denial in staying true to your claims, especially since you must get a lot of slivers from punching those keys on your wooden keyboard, not to mention blisters from your abacus.

Any other course of action on your part would be sheer hypocrisy, and we know you klimate alarmists wouldn't be that way...

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, I could spend all day cutting and pasting evidence that refutes the rubbish you post, but what good would it do. You never respond to anything that factually discredits your cut and pastes. It is a waste of time preaching to the rest of the converted, and you obviously did not come here with an open mind willing to consider that your opinion may be wrong and that you would allow facts to convince you. You came to preach to the rest of us and tell us how stupid we must be since we don't agree with you, what is the point of wasting time trying to convince you of anything, I hate to guess how much time we have already wasted on this exercise, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind.

Stupid are your words. I will leave it up to readers to decide if it is true.

So are you prepared to call NOAA, NASA, and all the climate scientist working at various institutions around the world rubbish? If so, you are wasting everyone's time because you are a extremist nut case.

Where is all your evidence that what I post is wrong? Here are a couple recent examples of your lame, very weak responses. Neither of them contained any evidence that would counter the science of human caused global climate change.

1. Your rebuttal on the NOAA website that discussed the science on sea level rise, your response is below. It's almost as if you don't know how to use the internet. NOAA has lots of science on line about sea level rise. Do you need my help finding it or can do your own search? Just asking because its there to back up the NOAA website I posted.

Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?
Response From Albertafarmer 5:
"Perhaps I am a poor reader, but I don't see any evidence, numbers or graphs quantifying sea level rise acceleration. Just a couple statements in the title and first paragraph, then the remainder is propaganda fluff, completely devoid of facts that in anyway substantiate the title"

2. You recently posted data from Lacombe weather station as presented by Murray Hartman.

So out of all the weather stations in the world are you trying to draw conclusions about global climate change from one station in central Alberta? Because most of the world is covered in oceans and Canada has many rural weather stations.

Do you think that Lacombe is representative of what is happening in Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any where else on the planet? Because it is not.

[chuckChuck]

The research quoted above the article I posted was done by Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and also colleagues in the World Weather Attribution (WWA) consortium.

So get out the knives for Geert. He must be part of the global conspiracy!


"The rapid scientific assessment of the northern European heatwave was done by Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and also colleagues in the World Weather Attribution (WWA) consortium. “We can see the fingerprints of climate change on local extremes,” he said.

The current heatwave has been caused by an extraordinary stalling of the jet stream wind, which usually funnels cool Atlantic weather over the continent. This has left hot, dry air in place for two months – far longer than usual. The stalling of the northern hemisphere jet stream is being increasingly firmly linked to global warming, in particular to the rapid heating of the Arctic and resulting loss of sea ice.

Prof Mann said that asking if climate change “causes” specific events is the wrong question: “The relevant question is: ‘Is climate change impacting these events and making them more extreme?’, and we can say with great confidence that it is.”

[burnt]

"Prof Mann said...”

You lost any shred of credibility right there.

Chucky, answer the question - are you still connected to the grid or have you completely made the switch to non-conventional energy sources?

[chuckChuck]

Couple things.

Of course we should be efficient. Reasonable fuel standards, emissions technology and market based renewables. All great, but that cant support our way of life. And I for one am not going back to caves. We need FF mix in there. More NG/LNG would be the way to go, etc.

Mann is the originator of the hockey stick graph 20 yrs ago. That has not happened. He is discredited based on that alone.

Lastly, Canada is already carbon negative. No climate barbie and grope boy wont tell you this, but if you properly account for canadas forests, fresh water, arable land and carbon sequestration by farmers, we are negative and are basically offsetting emissions from some nasty players like China.

The US withdrew from the Paris accord, didnt institute a carbon tax and they are the only country on the planet where emissions dropped.

Climate scientist are discredited as well, because they live and die by public grants, so they made up a hysteria to fund, made every single study about the effects of climate and watched the money roll in. Last time I checked, my lawyer, ag rep and accountant didnt get a govt grant sent to them.

Where is your evidence that Canada is carbon negative?

In the carbon cycle carbon dioxide is continually released as decaying carbon sources release CO2. Reduced tillage slows the release down but it doesn't stop it. Permanent grasslands,forests, and wetlands also release CO2.

There are numerous other greenhouse gases as well. Nitrous oxide, methane being important in
agriculture.

Are you saying science is discredited because they get funding from government sources? That is an irrational statement.

[seldomseen]

Chuck I have asked before and never got an answer so I will ask again.

Have you got your solar panels up and generating power? If you do could you tell us a bit about them or let some of us come over and have a look at them?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Stupid are your words. I will leave it up to readers to decide if it is true.

So are you prepared to call NOAA, NASA, and all the climate scientist working at various institutions around the world rubbish? If so, you are wasting everyone's time because you are a extremist nut case.

Where is all your evidence that what I post is wrong? Here are a couple recent examples of your lame, very weak responses. Neither of them contained any evidence that would counter the science of human caused global climate change.

1. Your rebuttal on the NOAA website that discussed the science on sea level rise, your response is below. It's almost as if you don't know how to use the internet. NOAA has lots of science on line about sea level rise. Do you need my help finding it or can do your own search? Just asking because its there to back up the NOAA website I posted.

Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?
Response From Albertafarmer 5:
"Perhaps I am a poor reader, but I don't see any evidence, numbers or graphs quantifying sea level rise acceleration. Just a couple statements in the title and first paragraph, then the remainder is propaganda fluff, completely devoid of facts that in anyway substantiate the title"

2. You recently posted data from Lacombe weather station as presented by Murray Hartman.

So out of all the weather stations in the world are you trying to draw conclusions about global climate change from one station in central Alberta? Because most of the world is covered in oceans and Canada has many rural weather stations.

Do you think that Lacombe is representative of what is happening in Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any where else on the planet? Because it is not.

Right out of the climate change playbook. If the facts don't support your argument, attack the opponent personally. Professional ethics are not in the climate change playbook. I'll respond to the rest when I have more time.