DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[Axel]

We have officially ran out of topics to discuss; a thread about the weather

[Apollo]

It's evolved to something beyond weather.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Joey]

This is pretty funny:

[RandomGuy]

This is pretty funny:

Loved his show on Scotland's independence... Good stuff

[mcHAPPY]

Funny clips are great. But the essence of the video is everyone says one thing so the other is false. That is essentially bullying and piling on for group think, no? Such thinking would have led to the continued belief the world is flat. Oh I know, but the scientists said it is correct and science is never wrong.... except when the science is manipulated by scientists with an agenda to promote the views of those providing the funding.

The above video is not funny or mainstream but it certainly shows the data as it is presented and what it really states are a wee bit different. I believe without a doubt we should be working to leave the earth clean but the means to get there (i.e. taxation) are just another in a long line of money grabs to fund ever expanding western governments.

I find global warming to be right up there with the last 50 years of 'science' telling us that a healthy diet is low in saturated fat and high in complex carbohydrates. Turns out all that previous research is quite a bit flawed and one only needs look at the biggest producers of food in the USA to find out why they would push such an agenda. There is a lot of research coming out showing what we thought to be 'healthy' eating is anything but, here is just one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/he...diet.html?_r=0


As ice continues to accumulate in the Arctic and Antarctic I look forward to the shift in 'science'. We've already seen one shift in the face of evidence stating the opposite: we no longer talk 'global warming' as everything is now 'climate change'.

[Joey]

Funny clips are great. But the essence of the video is everyone says one thing so the other is false. That is essentially bullying and piling on for group think, no? Such thinking would have led to the continued belief the world is flat. Oh I know, but the scientists said it is correct and science is never wrong.... except when the science is manipulated by scientists with an agenda to promote the views of those providing the funding.

The above video is not funny or mainstream but it certainly shows the data as it is presented and what it really states are a wee bit different. I believe without a doubt we should be working to leave the earth clean but the means to get there (i.e. taxation) are just another in a long line of money grabs to fund ever expanding western governments.

I find global warming to be right up there with the last 50 years of 'science' telling us that a healthy diet is low in saturated fat and high in complex carbohydrates. Turns out all that previous research is quite a bit flawed and one only needs look at the biggest producers of food in the USA to find out why they would push such an agenda. There is a lot of research coming out showing what we thought to be 'healthy' eating is anything but, here is just one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/he...diet.html?_r=0


As ice continues to accumulate in the Arctic and Antarctic I look forward to the shift in 'science'. We've already seen one shift in the face of evidence stating the opposite: we no longer talk 'global warming' as everything is now 'climate change'.

He sums up the map comparison he shows at 1:08, which is really all we should be looking at, with "Looks pretty balanced" .. which I completely disagree with. It very obviously skews warmer. In my opinion.

But to your point about ice; you very generally state that "Ice" is growing and not shrinking in the Arctic and Antarctic, which is technically true.

I'll just snake a few points from this page here: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html

First off:

Recently NASA reported that this year's maximum wintertime extent of Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record, even greater than the previous year's record.

So you're technically right. However,

Continental v. sea ice

First off, sea ice is different to the "continental ice" associated with polar ice caps, glaciers, ice shelves and icebergs. Continental ice is formed by the gradual deposition, build up and compaction of snow, resulting in ice that is hundreds to thousands of metres thick, storing and releasing freshwater that influences global sea-level over thousands of years.

Sea ice, though equally important to the climate system, is completely different. It is the thin layer (typically 1-2m) of ice that forms on the surface of the ocean when the latter is sufficiently cooled enough by the atmosphere.

From there sea ice can move with the winds and currents, continuing to grow both by freezing and through collisions (between the floes that make up the ice cover). When the atmosphere, and/or ocean is suitably warm again, such as in spring or if the sea ice has moved sufficiently towards the equator, then the sea ice melts again.

Antarctic v. Arctic

Secondly, we need to understand that the Arctic and Antarctic climate systems are very different, particularly in sea ice.

In the Arctic, sea ice forms in an ocean roughly centred on the North Pole that is surrounded by continents. A relatively large (though diminishing) proportion of the ice persists over multiple years before ultimately departing for warmer latitudes through exit points such as Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard.

In the south, on the other hand, sea ice forms outwards from the continental Antarctic Ice Sheet, where it is exposed to and strongly influenced by the winds and waters of the Southern Ocean. Here, there is a much stronger seasonal ebb and flow to sea ice coverage as over 80% of the sea ice area grows each autumn-winter and decays each spring-summer. This annual expansion-contraction from about 4 to 19 million square kms is one of the greatest seasonal changes on the Earth's surface.

What happened this winter?

This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010).

To further complicate this picture, we find this net increase actually masks strong declines in particular regions around Antarctica, such as in the Bellingshausen Sea, which are on par or greater than those in the Arctic.

So while there is much greater attention given to the Arctic decline and the prediction of "ice-free summers" at the North Pole this century, Antarctic climate scientists still have their work cut out to understand the regional declines amidst the mild "net" expansion occurring in the southern hemisphere.

I'm going to venture a guess that these "recoveries" are merely superficial, and in the long run, will work out as Net-Negative.
Guess we'll have to wait and see ... when the world and environment are already fucked.

As for Taxation vs. Not, I'm not sure how else you propose to make Multi-Billion (trillion?) Dollar companies think about their Ecological Footprint except by going after their pocket books? Not to mention massive Incentives are also offered, which could theoretically save these companies Millions in the long run.

[Uncle_Si]

He sums up the map comparison he shows at 1:08, which is really all we should be looking at, with "Looks pretty balanced" .. which I completely disagree with. It very obviously skews warmer. In my opinion.

But to your point about ice; you very generally state that "Ice" is growing and not shrinking in the Arctic and Antarctic, which is technically true.

I'll just snake a few points from this page here: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html

First off:


So you're technically right. However,







I'm going to venture a guess that these "recoveries" are merely superficial, and in the long run, will work out as Net-Negative.
Guess we'll have to wait and see ... when the world and environment are already fucked.

As for Taxation vs. Not, I'm not sure how else you propose to make Multi-Billion (trillion?) Dollar companies think about their Ecological Footprint except by going after their pocket books? Not to mention massive Incentives are also offered, which could theoretically save these companies Millions in the long run.

You're going to "venture a guess" now are you? I like it, now you're talking exactly like a 'climatologist'

You're foolish if u think taxing companies hurts them. All they do is pass the burden on to the consumer.

[mcHAPPY]

He sums up the map comparison he shows at 1:08, which is really all we should be looking at, with "Looks pretty balanced" .. which I completely disagree with. It very obviously skews warmer. In my opinion.

But to your point about ice; you very generally state that "Ice" is growing and not shrinking in the Arctic and Antarctic, which is technically true.

I'll just snake a few points from this page here: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html

First off:


So you're technically right. However,







I'm going to venture a guess that these "recoveries" are merely superficial, and in the long run, will work out as Net-Negative.
Guess we'll have to wait and see ... when the world and environment are already fucked.

As for Taxation vs. Not, I'm not sure how else you propose to make Multi-Billion (trillion?) Dollar companies think about their Ecological Footprint except by going after their pocket books? Not to mention massive Incentives are also offered, which could theoretically save these companies Millions in the long run.

Right there you've closed your mind to science because it doesn't jive with your beliefs. The results are right there it just doesn't jive with social mood at the present point in time.

As for making companies greener through taxation? No you give tax breaks and incentives. Proactive versus reactive. The problem with the proactive solutions is they don't benefit government directly with increases in 'public' coffers. A proactive approach not only helps for a cleaner environment but it also creates employment opportunities and creates new technologies. So ask yourself: why isn't this being proposed as a solution? If big corporations only real concern is the bottom line, why not provide opportunities to enhance it rather than only diminish it?

The solutions to the world problems are found in doing the opposite of what is being advocated.

[Uncle_Si]

Right there you've closed your mind to science because it doesn't jive with your beliefs. The results are right there it just doesn't jive with social mood at the present point in time.

As for making companies greener through taxation? No you give tax breaks and incentives. Proactive versus reactive. The problem with the proactive solutions is they don't benefit government directly with increases in 'public' coffers. A proactive approach not only helps for a cleaner environment but it also creates employment opportunities and creates new technologies. So ask yourself: why isn't this being proposed as a solution? If big corporations only real concern is the bottom line, why not provide opportunities to enhance it rather than only diminish it?

The solutions to the world problems are found in doing the opposite of what is being advocated.

Milton Friedman would be so proud. ��

[mcHAPPY]

Milton Friedman would be so proud. ��

We watched communism die in the late '80s.

As we roll into the second half of the 2010s we will watch socialism die.

In the 2020s we'll watch a return to capitalism as everyone comes to see the Icelandic response to the banks was the correct response.....some trillions of wasted dollars later.

The solution to a debt and over obligation problem is not more debt and obligations.

[Joey]

Right there you've closed your mind to science because it doesn't jive with your beliefs. The results are right there it just doesn't jive with social mood at the present point in time.

And what exactly have you done? 97% of Science says your opinion is misguided. You seem to be completely ignoring ALL other aspects, and merely focusing on Sea Ice, which as I pointed out, is NOT the only factor at play here.

Going to back to that video you posted, and never really touched on my point; the map he shows is clearly skewed 'Above Average', and yet he's somehow saying its 'pretty balanced'. So even these Satellites aren't completely agreeing with the point he is trying to make.

As for making companies greener through taxation? No you give tax breaks and incentives. Proactive versus reactive. The problem with the proactive solutions is they don't benefit government directly with increases in 'public' coffers. A proactive approach not only helps for a cleaner environment but it also creates employment opportunities and creates new technologies. So ask yourself: why isn't this being proposed as a solution? If big corporations only real concern is the bottom line, why not provide opportunities to enhance it rather than only diminish it?

The solutions to the world problems are found in doing the opposite of what is being advocated.

Massive Incentives and Tax Credits are already offered for Sustainable and LEED Credited buildings.

And frankly, I'm not sure I agree with you. These companies (lets generalize, but for specifics purposes, lets talk Oil & Gas) make Trillions of Dollars in profits off of something that very clearly dimishes the well being of those closest to "groud zero"; Whether that be humans or wild life. Why should the whole of the country not benefit, through taxation, from these profits that they as a people who must deal with the consequences, when some of these companies aren't even "Local"?

[enlightenment]

Basketball fans talking about science. This conversation is laughable. Raise your hand if you have more than a highschool education.

[mcHAPPY]

Basketball fans talking about science. This conversation is laughable. Raise your hand if you have more than a highschool education.

Congrats on being a first class dick.

By the way I have two bachelors, a masters, and numerous certificates.

[enlightenment]

Congrats on being a first class dick.

By the way I have two bachelors, a masters, and numerous certificates.

In what? Bullshit?

[mcHAPPY]

And what exactly have you done? 97% of Science says your opinion is misguided. You seem to be completely ignoring ALL other aspects, and merely focusing on Sea Ice, which as I pointed out, is NOT the only factor at play here.

Going to back to that video you posted, and never really touched on my point; the map he shows is clearly skewed 'Above Average', and yet he's somehow saying its 'pretty balanced'. So even these Satellites aren't completely agreeing with the point he is trying to make.



Massive Incentives and Tax Credits are already offered for Sustainable and LEED Credited buildings.

And frankly, I'm not sure I agree with you. These companies (lets generalize, but for specifics purposes, lets talk Oil & Gas) make Trillions of Dollars in profits off of something that very clearly dimishes the well being of those closest to "groud zero"; Whether that be humans or wild life. Why should the whole of the country not benefit, through taxation, from these profits that they as a people who must deal with the consequences, when some of these companies aren't even "Local"?

The majority of science also said a low fat high carb was healthy.... Uh oh. But take comfort in the masses.

Ice is one component but not the only. Land surface temps also not buying the hype either. There are so many holes in the science it is a mockery.

1:36 is balanced comment relating to land only readings. I find it hard to disagree.

Government has buildings covered.... Great. Now let's get to industry.