Goldman Sachs analysis of the impact of climate change. The result are terrifying

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Integrity farmer, I was expecting you to show some integrity and issue a rebuttal to my praise and criticism of your excellent post. I spent a lot of effort critiquing it for you, and pointing out how well done it was over all, the least you can do is offer the same in return.

You are obviously in a completely different pay grade than Chuck, and it would be a pleasure to debate with someone with such professionalism, after dealing with Chuck's mud slinging and gross ignorance/incomprehension of the science.

That is a great post Integrity Farmer, very...,



very carefully worded, is the best way to describe it. Chuck would be well advised to pay attention and take notes on how it is done by a professional.

You very carefully stated a lot of facts which thanks to some intentionally omitted key words, are not debatable. Not once did you state anything about CO2, or human caused climate change, even though it was obviously implied by the context. This makes the statements true, and undebatable. Who would argue with you that the climate is changing, and scientists agree about that. It sounds like such a certain and affirmative statement, yet it says absolutely nothing without a qualifier about the cause. And of course, you didn't mention anything about the positions of scientists who are right. Making it a statement that can be construed as anything to anyone.

Same with melting glaciers, everyone knows that it is happening, nothing controversial at all about your statement, but without any context, such as causes, extent, when it started, how unprecedented it is or isn't, it is once again just a scary sounding sound bite with no meaning.

Same with telling us farmers that we are aware of the weather we are dealing with. Again, the statement lacks any point of reference or claims about the cause, you explicitly don't even try to claim that it is unprecedented, or human caused, but to the biased reader, such as Chuck, that would be construed as a statement claiming CAGW is responsible for "weather".

But prior to that, you have used the age old salesman method of setting the stage with a long list of examples of genuine issues( in your case, environmental problems humanity has solved), then transitioning to the sales pitch for your own product or message at the end, conflating two completely unrelated topics, while the reader is still fixated on the first actual examples. Complete with examples of industry attempting to confuse the issue, with the obvious intention( but unmentioned, and completely unrelated or unwarranted) comparison to the current debate.

The only major slip up you made was using the word climate when you referred to the world solving the list of environmental disasters. The intention is obvious, to seamlessly tie the two completely unrelated issues together in the readers mind. It likely works with most low intelligence readers, but is much too contrived, and forced for anyone actually paying attention. Those were environmental issues( although some are still debated today), with solutions that were both possible and practical, and results that are quantifiable in human time scales. Nothing whatsoever to do with climate. The alarmist side loves to use those arguments because they are so effective, but you need to be more subtle in tying the two together, so you can't be accused of stating falsehoods.

But all in all, a very good example of how it is done, you could be quite successful in the advertising industry, a politician, or a salesman.

[rumrocks]

Humor at it's best . . . . . . . Probably not a Mckenna production.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&t=104s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&t=104s

[malleefarmer]

Re insurance.

I complain to my insurance broker about rising insurance on everything cars crops houses health liability trespass etc.

His plain straight reply no idea if right or wrong, insurance on everything went went up day after twin towers came down nothing more nothing less and has snowballed out of control since.

[chuckChuck]

Regardless of the uncertainty of climate change models factoring in the impact of clouds on climate change it is very clear that NASA and many world class scientific organizations have scientific evidence that human caused climate change is occurring.

The opinions of uninformed arm chair experts don't stand up to that of climate scientists. If you think your opinions and knowledge of the subject are more accurate than specialists in their field of study, you should also start doing your own surgery and dental work.


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2018. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 139-year record all have occurred since 2005, with the five warmest years being the five most recent years. Credit: NASA's Earth Observatory. Download still image.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

The Role of Human Activity

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you are behind the times if you still think the consensus is only 97%. Grassfarmer posted a tweet the other day that has now increased the consensus to include ALL scientists. Just trying to keep you current so you don't say anything that might embarrass yourself.

But that still doesn't mean that science is a democratic process.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Humor at it's best . . . . . . . Probably not a Mckenna production.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&t=104s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&t=104s

At about 3 minute mark, after the lady explains that only warm weather is climate and cold isn't, therefore all evidence is proof of global warming:

Man: "So how do you disprove global warming?"

Lady: "You can't, that's how you know it's true."

Doesn't that just remind you of Chuck?

[jazz]

Wow we had ocean temp monitoring buoys back in 1880, amazing.

So the models are bogus and we don't need them so we can just look at the weather channel to tell the earth is being cooked to a cinder as I look at a couple inches of snow on my driveway. Everybody and their dog knows 5 yrs in the 80s and most of the 1920s have all the temp high records no matter how hard the gov tries to delete them. They have the records on the news at night. Do you have TV?

Chuck is the IPCC now the go to organization now that you have disavowed NASA? Just let me know and I will send a spear through the heart of that corrupt organization next post.

[fjlip]

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

I thought the problem was CARBON! You moron, CARBON, TURDO/MCKENNA, CARBON CARBON !

[rumrocks]

Chuck-

I'm somewhat of a skeptic for what I believe are good reasons concerning weather extremes . . .

Why do the extremers only use partial graphs or selected periods of history when justifying their
arguments.

Why are a large number of temperature stations in cooler areas being eliminated.

Why is Nasa softening their position on weather extremes.

Why do they consider a warmer climate bad, at least one time in the past, palm trees grew in
Wyoming.

Ocean levels seem to be stable, not rising

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/

The optics of this whole movement are bad, the main reason why there are so many deniers, you can't
blame them.

I am not a ridged person when it comes to new ideas and absorbing knowledge, but on occasion I see
sleazy salesmanship and this being one.

I'm not saying that burning fossil fuel isn't having negative effects on air quality, that's a given, but as
for changing weather patterns world wide, I'd put the probability at maybe 2 to 5 per cent.

Whats your best guess.

[Guest]

again , how in **** is it possible that there is any liberal supporters in western canada , let alone a western canada farmer
its baffling to me ???