• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

calamity said:
It's probably one of the most obvious emergencies ever declared. Certainly climate change is more urgent than whatever phony crap the Trumpets declared was happening at the border that necessitated throwing thousands of people into overcrowded cages.
Click to expand...

What is the remedy?
 
Quaestio said:
Yes, there are many people in America who actually believe the misguided insane idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old for example, but what do your creationist religious beliefs have to do with this thread?
Click to expand...

How did you drift to that post from the one that you quoted?
 
Media_Truth said:
The bolded statement above is what I would add. Even if greenhouse gases were drastically reduced today, we will still reach a minimum 1.5 deg C rise. We are currently at 0.8 to 0.9 deg C rise, and we are already seeing the effects.

IPCC 1.5-Degree C Special Report | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

  • Global warming of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels poses greater risks than previously believed. These risks can be substantially reduced by limiting warming to 1.5 degrees
  • Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C requires dramatic emission reductions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by around 2050. This would entail unprecedented transformations of energy, land, urban, and industrial systems, including measures to achieve “negative emissions” by removing carbon from the atmosphere.
  • Adaptation efforts are currently insufficient to prevent losses associated with 1.5 degrees C warming, but can be significantly increased to reduce the negative consequences of climate change.
Click to expand...

That is the whole crux of the issue, is it not?

The world was warmer than today by about a full degree 8000 years ago. Wide Spread use of Fossil Fuels would not occur for another several thousands of years following that point in the climate record.

We have only recently RETURNED to the point of climate at which the glaciers in Glacier National Park originally formed AFTER they melted following the most recent Ice Age.

Well, not completely... There are still glaciers in Glacier National Park today. To be all the way back to the climate of 7000 years ago, they would need to all be completely melted.

Your call to action is a call to idiots led by morons pursuing stupidity in the name of hysteria.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
This is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your post, presents it as if the post is complete and does not indicate that an edit has occurred?

I wonder where these lying a-holes got their information to make these signs...

In passing, the signs were removed because the predicted warming to melt the glaciers before 2020 was not occurring. Go figure...

H3p3FzPiwxuZnmfgPRWRPZcsbnPDKk_Uj98bk9pzHasrnDwzZ-cXMSe74ptaSTMtIbHGaK9a9LZe1CA7YFSXfHs7dxITdyOMGrkI3mDpeHMgEH-nwboK=s0-d-e1-ft
 
code1211 said:
Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your post, presents it as if the post is complete and does not indicate that an edit has occurred?

I wonder where these lying a-holes got their information to make these signs...

In passing, the signs were removed because the predicted warming to melt the glaciers before 2020 was not occurring. Go figure...

H3p3FzPiwxuZnmfgPRWRPZcsbnPDKk_Uj98bk9pzHasrnDwzZ-cXMSe74ptaSTMtIbHGaK9a9LZe1CA7YFSXfHs7dxITdyOMGrkI3mDpeHMgEH-nwboK=s0-d-e1-ft
Click to expand...

Your statement that "the world was warmer than today by about a full degree 8000 years ago" remains incorrect. Where did you get this information from?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Network with more than 7 000 universities and colleges from six continents have declared a climate emergency and also commited to adress the climate crisis.

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

740 jurisdictions and local governments with 136 million citizens have also declared a climate emergency.

Climate emergency declarations in 740 jurisdictions and local governments cover 136 million citizens - Climate Emergency Declaration
Click to expand...

Indoctrination at it's finest!!!
 
longview said:
If the level of grants do not continue at the rate they have been at since AGW became an issue,
it will be an emergency, and the universities have increased the budget, as if such funding would continue!!!:doh
Click to expand...

The fossil fuel companies are among the most profitable in the world and also acknowledge the threath action on climate change pose for their businesses.

Saudi Aramco says climate lawsuits ‘could result in substantial costs’

Still they havn't been able to disprove manmade global warming and instead have to acknowledge the need to drastcly reduce C02 emissions.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil
 
Last edited:
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The fossil fuel are among the most profitable in the world and also acknowledge the threath climate change pose for the business.

Saudi Aramco says climate lawsuits ‘could result in substantial costs’

Still they havn't been able to disprove manmade global warming and instead have to acknowledge the need to drastcly reduce C02 emissions.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil
Click to expand...
SO?
Universities use grants to fund lab build outs, equipment purchases, course release time,
and to hire research assistants, and the administration get a large cut for overhead.
It is expected that universities would want to keep the grant money rolling in,
why would you think otherwise?
 
code1211 said:
What is their recommendation to correct the crisis?

Does any part of it involve the reduction of the expulsion of CO2 laced hot air from Universities?
Click to expand...

In the article you can read about the three points plan.

"The three-point plan, published in an open letter on 10 July, includes:

• Committing to going carbon neutral by 2030 or 2050 at the very latest.

• Mobilising more resources for action-oriented climate change research and skills creation.

• Increasing teaching and learning about environmental and sustainability education across curricula, campus and community outreach programmes."

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

You also have countries leading the way.

Norway Sold More Electric Vehicles in First Half of Year

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

Finland vows to become carbon neutral by 2035 | The Independent
 
longview said:
SO?
Universities use grants to fund lab build outs, equipment purchases, course release time,
and to hire research assistants, and the administration get a large cut for overhead.
It is expected that universities would want to keep the grant money rolling in,
why would you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

If you looked at the article you could see that just one oil company, Saudi Aramco, netted $111 billion in 2018. So with that kind of money it would have been easy to disprove manmade global warming. Something the fossil fuel companies havn't been able to do.

You can also look at an organization like NASA there climate change research is a small part of their budget. So it would have been much smarter for NASA to disprove manmade now that you have a president that have claimed that climate change is a Chinese hoax. If they wanted to maximize their designated budget in other areas.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Instead NASA acknowledge the urgent need for action.

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
 
Bergslagstroll said:
If you looked at the article you could see that just one oil company, Saudi Aramco, netted $111 billion in 2018. So with that kind of money it would have been easy to disprove manmade global warming. Something the fossil fuel companies havn't been able to do.

You can also look at an organization like NASA there climate change research is a small part of their budget. So it would have been much smarter for NASA to disprove manmade now that you have a president that have claimed that climate change is a Chinese hoax. If they wanted to maximize their designated budget in other areas.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Instead NASA acknowledge the urgent need for action.

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
Click to expand...

So, what does that have to do with how Universities operate?
No one can disprove man made global warming, but mostly because the IPCC and others have not actually
defined AGW with solid enough boundaries to challenge.
If you want to try, go ahead!
What exactly is the latency period between the forcing warming perturbation and ECS?
Since no boundary is defined, no definitive statements have been made.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]BOOM! Scott Adams uses Dilbert to Diss the ‘Climate Crisis’ Again[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Genius cartoonist Scott Adams published a Sunday cartoon panel offensive to the climate religion. From “Climate Change ” is the new universal boogeyman department. Just in case you think this cartoon is too ridiculous to be true, there are plenty of real world examples of people trying to blame climate…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/15/dilbert-scott-adams-disses-the-climate-crisis-again/"]
disaster-recovery-dilbert1.jpeg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]BOOM! Scott Adams uses Dilbert to Diss the ‘Climate Crisis’ Again[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Genius cartoonist Scott Adams published a Sunday cartoon panel offensive to the climate religion. From “Climate Change ” is the new universal boogeyman department. Just in case you think this cartoon is too ridiculous to be true, there are plenty of real world examples of people trying to blame climate…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/15/dilbert-scott-adams-disses-the-climate-crisis-again/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Look - the deniers have resorted to cartoons in lieu of science.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your statement that "the world was warmer than today by about a full degree 8000 years ago" remains incorrect. Where did you get this information from?
Click to expand...

In addition to the anecdotal evidence presented by the melting of glaciers around the world to levels of between 5000 and 7000 years ago, there is the actual scientific presentations like the one below.

What do YOU present to support your notions?

In passing, please note that the temperature variations of the Holocene are marked by rapid and dramatic warmings and coolings.

In the warmings and coolings graphed here, there were no SUV's to drive the changes.

climate4you welcome

<snip>
The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.

<snip>
 
Bergslagstroll said:
In the article you can read about the three points plan.

"The three-point plan, published in an open letter on 10 July, includes:

• Committing to going carbon neutral by 2030 or 2050 at the very latest.

• Mobilising more resources for action-oriented climate change research and skills creation.

• Increasing teaching and learning about environmental and sustainability education across curricula, campus and community outreach programmes."

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

You also have countries leading the way.

Norway Sold More Electric Vehicles in First Half of Year

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

Finland vows to become carbon neutral by 2035 | The Independent
Click to expand...

Alrighty, then!

ALL of the measures involve controlling anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

The Graph below shows that the temperatures of the Holocene have been much higher when CO2 concentration was much lower.

I am not saying out of hand that controlling CO2 emissions is bad or useless. I'm just saying that the straight line cause-effect connecting rising CO2 to higher temperatures you imply to be certain is not certain.

Today's "Climate Emergency" representing a rise in temperature from the coldest point in 8500 years seems to be more like a recovery than an emergency.

The last few years of graphed temperature record are based instrument readings. As such, they show some distortion from the proxy record in the earlier portions of the graph.

climate4you welcome

<snip>

The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.

<snip>
 
code1211 said:
In addition to the anecdotal evidence presented by the melting of glaciers around the world to levels of between 5000 and 7000 years ago, there is the actual scientific presentations like the one below.

What do YOU present to support your notions?

In passing, please note that the temperature variations of the Holocene are marked by rapid and dramatic warmings and coolings.

In the warmings and coolings graphed here, there were no SUV's to drive the changes.

climate4you welcome

<snip>
The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.

<snip>
Click to expand...

The first of those graphs is a fake, produced by stitching the global temperature record since 1850 to the local Greenland ice sheet temperature from the GISP 2 ice core. The doctored nature of this graph has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, yet the science deniers keep posting it. No one can have a memory that short, so I presume it is their intention to deceive. The only question is: why?
 
Surface Detail said:
The first of those graphs is a fake, produced by stitching the global temperature record since 1850 to the local Greenland ice sheet temperature from the GISP 2 ice core. The doctored nature of this graph has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, yet the science deniers keep posting it. No one can have a memory that short, so I presume it is their intention to deceive. The only question is: why?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, then, you can post the graph for this period that is correct.

Either that or just keep denying science.

It would be nice, also, to post the reputable source that shows what you claim to be true.

It is wise to note that the disclaimers regarding the source of data are in the captions on the graph.

Did you actually read anything on this? Ever?
 
code1211 said:
Perhaps, then, you can post the graph for this period that is correct.

Either that or just keep denying science.

It would be nice, also, to post the reputable source that shows what you claim to be true.

It is wise to note that the disclaimers regarding the source of data are in the captions on the graph.

Did you actually read anything on this? Ever?
Click to expand...

Did you even bother reading the caption? It states there that "the upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet" and also "the small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations". Except in this particular iteration of the fake, the red part has been coloured blue to match the rest of the graph.

Anyway, it's not my job to show that the graph is a fake; it's your job to demonstrate its authenticity when asked. If it were authentic, it would have been published in the scientific literature. It wasn't though. It was fabricated by a science denier.
 
Surface Detail said:
. . . If it were authentic, it would have been published in the scientific literature. . . .
Click to expand...

What a silly claim. Here's an authentic graph that can't seem to find a home.

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
 
Surface Detail said:
Did you even bother reading the caption? It states there that "the upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet" and also "the small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations". Except in this particular iteration of the fake, the red part has been coloured blue to match the rest of the graph.

Anyway, it's not my job to show that the graph is a fake; it's your job to demonstrate its authenticity when asked. If it were authentic, it would have been published in the scientific literature. It wasn't though. It was fabricated by a science denier.
Click to expand...

I presented the graph along with the caption indicating the researchers and the methodology.

You started whining that you don't like it.

You have presented NOTHING to support your dislike of it. You have presented nothing to support whatever the heck it is that you believe to be a more accurate representation of the Holocene climate.

WHY are you complaining about something for which you have absolutely NOTHING to offer that refutes the conclusions?

If you have something present it. If not, STFU.

As of right now, you are simply a denier whining because the actual scientific data does not support your delusions.
 
[h=1]You Don't Need To Be A Scientist To Know That The Global Warming Alarm "Science" Is Fake[/h]July 15, 2019/ Francis Menton[FONT=&quot]If you follow the subject of global warming alarm, you will have read many times that there is a “consensus” of “97% of climate scientists” on — well, on something. I’ve actually never been able to find a precise statement of the proposition on which the 97% supposedly agree. But suppose you can find the statement. And suppose that it consists of some kind of definitive assertion that there has been significant atmospheric warming over the past century, and that most to all of such warming has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Is this real science or fake science? How do you tell?
It seems that the most common approach of most people to this question is to trust the “scientists.” After all, science is complicated. You are not a scientist, so how are you ever going to understand this? And even if you are a scientist in some other field, and you have both the talent and the interest to delve into the details of how this conclusion was reached, you don’t have the time. You are told that 97% of “climate scientists” agree. Really, what choice do you have other than to trust the people who have done the work, and who call themselves the scientists and the experts on this subject? This approach apparently seems reasonable to a lot of people, including many, many seemingly intelligent people.
But not to me. The approach does not seem reasonable to me because the scientific method provides a very simple check for testing whether scientific claims are valid, and you don’t need to be a scientist to apply this check. (Another way of looking at it is that the people who apply this check are actually the real scientists, because they are the ones using the scientific method; and the people who call themselves “scientists” and work in “scientific” fields of endeavor and publish in scientific journals and wear scientist outfits, but don’t apply the actual scientific method, are not really scientists. But at this point in time the label “scientist” has been so captured by those who apply it to themselves whether or not they follow the scientific method that I think it is hopeless to get it back.)
Here is the very simple check. When confronted with a claim that a scientific proposition has been definitively proven, ask the question: What was the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected? . . .
READ MORE[/FONT]
 
code1211 said:
I presented the graph along with the caption indicating the researchers and the methodology.

You started whining that you don't like it.

You have presented NOTHING to support your dislike of it. You have presented nothing to support whatever the heck it is that you believe to be a more accurate representation of the Holocene climate.

WHY are you complaining about something for which you have absolutely NOTHING to offer that refutes the conclusions?

If you have something present it. If not, STFU.

As of right now, you are simply a denier whining because the actual scientific data does not support your delusions.
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out, that graph has been fabricated by stitching together local and global records. It makes no scientific sense to do such a thing. The graph is a fake designed to fool idiots. No surprise, then, that you have been taken in by it!

More details about the fake graph here: Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom