Poland blocks any action on climate change

You have a fair point there but it doesn't change the fact that such images reflect the reality of life in Poland for many.


Agree it's not typical of what I've seen in Warsaw but I don't know what it's like in small towns in poorer parts of Poland. There were certainly no resources or visual aid materials that you would expect to see for children of that age, not even a poster. Why would they be moved to a different room for a lesson instead of having it in their own classroom?

The people of Vanuatu or elsewhere don't need a fancy definition. They have to live with the results of climate change every day and see what's happening. Even the folks on the Gulf Coast are starting to get these facts into their thick skulls. Chicago next? LOL!

You can talk all night long whether the current climate change is a natural phenomenon, is caused by humans, or is a mixture of both. In either case we'll have to find a solution or we're toast. And the solution is NOT to burn more coal. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Only when it became so bad that people couldn't go outside anymore (for example in Australia) because of the radiation, the idiot politicians were willing to do something about it. Same needs to happen with climate change. The ultra rich are preparing themselves already. They bought up so much land in New Zealand that the country now bans foreigners from buying property.

I could only hope so. The climate has definitely changed here over the past 20 years. Winters are generally more mild and summers don't have the power line melting heat and humidity anymore. I love it and hope this trend continues. Maybe in time the Midwest will be a sort of a Florida winter get away type of destination. People will start putting in swimming pools in their homes which will definitely be a plus for me. If San Fran and Miami become submerged underwater that would be awesome. You can't even walk around in San Fran without stepping in homeless people's sh1t or used needles anymore thanks to ultra liberal policies. Yet climate change is their top priority.... even though the US has among the lowest levels of pollution despite being the greatest producer of c02.


Why? People like Al Gore have been saying that ice caps will melt ever since the 70s. I've lost count of the statements he's made that haven't come true. But I do remember the percentage - 100%. Scientists can't even agree if we're going through global warming or global cooling.

You think the Chinese care about this? They won't even consider paying any sort of money to countries that can manage their own environments and can't even build sewers let alone efficient power plants. If it gets in the way of economic progress you can bet the Chinese won't be on board. It's only foolish Europeans and Americans, which as the images I've posted yesterday show, have the lowest pollution levels while third world countries have the highest even though their c02 emissions are far smaller than EU, USA, and other developed countries.

The ozone layer hole has shrunk to record low... livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrinks-record-low.html
even though c02 emissions has clearly gone up worldwide over the past decade.


If global warming is indeed occurring and threatens to melt ice caps, isn't an island the last place you'd want to be?

So what do you think is happening right now in the Arctic? The ice cap is melting.

washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/11/arctic-is-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize/


New Zealand is not a tiny atoll in the middle of the Pacific. They have mountain ranges almost as high as the Rocky Mountains.


The hole in the ozone layer had nothing to do with CO2.

Yes they are melting. But none of the doom and gloom predictions of al gore et al ever came true. They've been saying the ice caps will be gone in 5, 10 20 etc years ever since the 70s.

From nasa:
Over the past decade, different "merging" techniques resulted in different long-term temperature trends, not all of which showed the warming that climate models predicted should have occurred. edicted should have occurred. Some early analyses even suggested that parts of the troposphere (lower atmosphere), where warming was expected, had cooled. The lack of an unequivocal warming trend in the troposphere was sometimes used to challenge both the reality of human-induced global warming as well as the reliability of climate models. While all the long-term atmospheric data sets now show a warming trend, they do not all show theamplified warming (greater warming of the atmosphere than the surface) that models predict. According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, this remaining uncertainty may be due to additional errors or to limitations in the models' ability to simulate the impact of global warming on different atmospheric layers.

In summary, the data differs and may errors, predictive models don't match data, cooling occurred when warning was predicted, models fail to create accurate predictions and there is little consensus.

Don't look at isolated areas, look at the whole picture. Global warming refers to an increase of the average global temperature. There are areas where a cooling trend can be observed, while others show a rise in temperatures. On average though, it's getting warmer.

Perhaps. But is that directly a result of man man c02? That cannot be definitively established as a fact as it not only fails the scientific method in terms of testing a variable against a control in an experiment which will always give the same result, but also the recorded data does not match predictive models. Assuming the scientists who are for or against limiting c02 took a 101 level lab, they would understand that. I'm not a scientist, I dropped out of pre-med and switched to business but the scientific method, reading dating, making predictive models, the differences between theories, axioms, laws, etc. are literally the first thing you learn.

What a loss to the medical profession

No. Try and follow along. The debate is how CO2 is warming the climate, generally referred to as climate sensitivity to CO2. We know for a fact how much direct warming CO2 will cause and we have good projections for how much CO2 we will put in the air. These give us a rise in roughly 1 degree Celcius over a century. And just for one century(which we are already a decade or two into) since putting more CO2 in the air has diminishing returns as far as how much warming it causes. Each additional bit of CO2 causes less warming than the bit preceding it. So after a century we won't really be putting enough carbon up to cause noticeable changes.

Climate sensitivity refers to the overall feedback in the climate system. Alarmist predict a sensitivity of 2-4 (or even higher in some cases) so that each degree of temperature change due to carbon will cause an additional 1-3 degrees of warming from positive feedback. Skeptics say that the climate sensitivity is lower than that or even possibly less than 1, due to the contributions of negative feedback. If we only warm by about 1 degree it won't be a problem and humanity and the planet will have no problem adapting. The economic damage caused by a few people having to relocate, adjusting which crops are grown in some areas, and other assorted adaptions will not be particularly large. Even if we get to 2 degrees the cost of adapting is still reasonable. It is only when you start getting above that that the term catastrophic starts becoming more applicable.

Fortunately comparing actual temperature data with the predictions of the studies touted by alarmist it looks like they are all uniformly way overshooting actual warming observed. So it looks like a climate sensitivity in the range of around 1, or maybe a little but higher, is pretty reasonable. When you consider how until fairly recently almost all of those studies made only minor attempts to model the effects of the ocean, largely due to the lack of good reliable data discussed earlier, it is no wonder that the models would all be rather inaccurate. It is also worth noting that with each additional IPPC report the predicted climate sensitivity keeps creeping downward. Already their lower bounds are basically in line with many skeptics positions.

Finally I would just like to throw out that if we were to reduce CO2 output in the way that alarmist say we need to then we would have to all go back to a pre-1900 standard of living. And even then they say it still wouldn't prevent most of the warming they predict. The cost of adapting to climate change is many times cheaper than the cost of preventing change even if the worst of the climate change predictions are true.

And that's why profit minded people dgaf about climate change... it's only third world countries who demand gibs from europeans and the liberals fall for it using b.s. like developed countries are causing pollution in Africa even though facts show the most industrialized richest counties have the cleanest air and environments while Africa has among the worst pollution despite back far behind in development

You think China is going to change their m.o because of western liberal tears or give africans 100 bil euro for free? Hell no.

I would, but I'm no climate scientest. I studied geology. I believe the glaciologists who simply observe there was no ice sheet loss at all for 1500 years, then from the 1970s it suddenly decides to shrink on masse (excuse the pun).

And depending on whether you read the "Carbon brief" website, or some Cambridge researchers' paper, you can come up with different theories. I would love to debate this, but am too busy baking for Christmas.

And I'm more interested in Brexit right now, as I wont be around in 70 years to witness the greater effects of plus 40 percent CO2 emissions.. Neither will you. How very convenient for us both. Fortunately independent workers are winning the argument and governments will be forced to listen to the reality of global warming once we get rid of this populist surge of career ranters.

That might take a while:(

Ok, lets talk about facts:
1. There is no reliable way to measure effects of human activates on a climate. i.e. human made climate change is just a propaganda slogan.

2. The climate changed few times even in a historical times. So nothing new there and there is no need to panic.

3. There is nothing people can do about it anyway, as there is no efficient way around to get some alternative sources of the energy needed. So for now we are stuck with what we know unlit the next major and revolutionary discovery.

i.e. all those windmills, so called green energy new inventions are just too cross effective and expensive and are operating as scams on a society. Taxpayers money and new taxes imposed are used to pay for that business that build some windmills for that money and they get to profit.

So that scam profit few on the expense of many and has no real value outside that small circle that actually profiteering on that.

By the way doesn't solve any real problems. Same as with 'gay' rights and other BS that is defecting attention from real problems that affect many people.

You already go your first fact wrong.


Basically every time the clima changed, it was very bad news for the dominant species.


Wrong again, there are many ways we could slow reduce the the rise of temperatures. This is in fact what previous international agreements were all about.

Nasa proves predictive models are erroneous i.e. data showed regions experienced cooling where warming was expected, data does not match the predictive models. That is why all of crazy Al 's predictions never came true.

It is simply cheaper for the developed world to deal with climate change than drastically alter basically every sector of the economy. Plus the two largest economies us and China dgaf about climate change. Others like russia want the climate to keep warming because it helps promote trade routes and developing the Arctic.

And the international agreements are about setting a limit on how high temperatures can go up because short of altering everyone's life people and the economy understand that there's little they can do

Somehow, Tacitus, I doubt facts are important to him.

Amazing how climate change deniers suddenly become experta contradicting the overwhelming opinion of real scientists. Anti-vaxxer nuts are much the same.

Nah, you got your fact wrong. Just go to a real scientist that know his stuff and ask him in private about it. It obvious you don't get it and you rely on some propaganda.


yeah, turn off the lights start burning wood. Let see who long you gonna survive that. Provided it will work at all. You are just like the rest of them you are fed HS and you eat it and you like it. It is miracle that democracy seems to be working.


Are you going senile or you are just being your silly self? Pay attention. I don't deny that climate is changing. I say there is no evidence it is a man made change. Also assumption that people can do something about is silly. I mean something that will not affect standard of living of the general population and at the same time something that will make a global measurable impact on the climate. Nah.

The vast majority of scientists studying climate change, global warming, etc are paid to come up with a certain conclusion. Naturally they won't bite the hand that feeds them. If you know about statistics you know that you can manipulate data and the tests used to make conclusions i.e. z test, t test, anova, etc. Seeing as climate change cannot be proven using repeated experiments that all reach the same conclusion the scientific method, that means these are just opinions as jon pointed out, not facts

What the experts say is a tad more reliable than what you try to say.


A casual reader of that might think he even believed what he just wrote...

Doesn't change the fact that it's true. Same as the fact that man made c02 causes the climate to change is merely a hypothesis, an opinion, as it cannot be proven using the scientific method. Furthermore, as NASA points out the data is highly varied and predictive models don't match data. But NASA is just a bout of climate change denying anti-vaxxers too right?

Both sides are obviously funded:

scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort
theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money
nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-un-promote-economic-agenda

Usually from proponents of global warming you mostly get appeals to authority. I'm by no means an expert but I try and follow and understand the debate as it develops, and it is still developing as more data becomes available and more time passes so more observations are made which can be compared to predictions. Most alarmist who post on these threads don't even do that. Of course that is what is expected when you conclude that the science is already settled, you stop making the effort to be informed since you assume you are correct, and even further assume that those who disagree are anti-science idiots like those who don't accept vaccination. Such misplaced smugness on your part. What a tragic waste.

There may well be very good reasons for that.


Indeed.

Such misplaced smugness on your part. What a tragic waste.

The tragic waste is the huge damage that an overwhelming consensus of scientists predict will happen as the already damaging man-made climate change increases.

An even more tragic waste is the missed opportunities to slow it down.

sheesh bit me
... or better not, who know what illness you carry in your body, some Ebola or other...yuck1

That's because developed countries aren't going to drastically change their economy. Countries like China simply don't care, russia wants more global warming bc they can take advantage of the arctic, us pulled out of Paris accord, etc. Jobs and livelihood is more important than what may happen w the environment in future generations. It's cheaper to fix **** when the climate changes so much buy the miff

Either way, Poland is getting a worse and worse reputation over this issue, due to the actions of the current regime. A shame really, given that (in urban Poland anyway) there is plenty of awareness of the facts of man-made climate change.

Right because PO really made a huge dent in coal mining and old school stoves that many poles use. Everyone knows how polluted katowice and even Krakow are, but they understand coal is important to Poland and feeds some 100k people directly, far more indirectly from coal companies employees wages.

Until there's a cheaper source, or at least one close to the price of energy produced by coal, Poles gotta use their key resource. It's almost like telling russia or Saudi Arabia to stop producing and using oil.

That is the correct answer. (Can anyone explain how the ice age occurred)


What is a sedimentologist ?
Perhaps one of you Global Warmingists could explain why Chicago is presently experiencing ALL TIME LOWS ON RECORD then.
It must have something to do with Global Warming right ?
msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/parts-of-midwest-could-feel-minus-60-wind-chills/ar-BBSQAZ3?

Ah, the war on climate change. Such a never ending source of taxpayer's money :-)

It used to be called "global warming" but some dodgers got into conclusion that it's not totally foolproof.

What would happen if the climate started to cool down instead of just warming up?

So they've changed it to "climate change".

And now it's perfect. They can fight with climate [change] and it doesn't matter whether it's getting hotter or colder in general.

Business as usual. Some real smart ass have invented this scheme.

And getting VERY RICH off it.
Ever wonder how Al Gore became a BILLIONAIRE while leaving a HUGE carbon footprint flying his private jet all over hell and back giving speeches for a half million a pop about Man Made 'Climate Change".

Have you ever seen the HUGE mansion that he lives in ?
You can't make this stuff up.