Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

[SimonP]

Year 0 in your chart is 1969, so omits all of the warming that we have had since then.

You should have a read of the IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report (SR15) that was released today:
Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

[marlboroughman]

This graph represents Climate Change, unless you are a denier.

Holocene-Temperatures.jpg (31.34 KiB) Viewed 1510 times

Now, these studies are not offered for free and I am not about to pay for them just to prove if they show temps up to 1969 or 1995.
But it is not necessary because we know the 30's were as warm as today before homogenization (massaging the data). OK, I now you are going to come back saying that homogenizing of the data was necessary, by assigning temperatures (from thin air, always higher) to more places, to cover the whole globe because we don't have sensors everywhere. That is total bullshit, but OK. Even though you don't deserve it, add 0.8 deg C to the orange at the end of this graph. This is Climate Change, it is totally normal and it will keep on changing because that's what it does, and there is nothing that you or the UN can do about it.

[SimonP]

Well, actually there is. Once again, I suggest you read the IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report (SR15) that was released yesterday.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
The science is well understood; research has been a priority once the implications became apparent in the 1980s.

[marlboroughman]

Give UN $ 2.4 Trillion to change climate.
Just few years before the natural cooling begins, very clever.
I have a simpler plan: get Al Gore's fat ass out of a private jet and it will be cold by 2025, I guarantee it.

[SimonP]

Your opinions are inconsistent with the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[Greenturtle]

Data from ice cores, tree rings etc, are specific to their locations and can also be interpreted differently depending on who is doing the analysis, and, who is paying them to do it. I would have to say that highly accurate averaged worldwide temperature data is not available for very far back in history.

We can debate whether or not climate change is real and/or caused by us until the cows come home, but we will die of old age before we know the answer. Which is why many people could give a shit less.

Extraction and combustion of fossil fuel is extremely polluting and destructive (particularly, but not limited to, coal), that is all the reason I need, to at the very least, endorse alternatives that hopefully are cleaner. For me, it has little to do with climate change, even though the impacts from that will be even more severe in the end. Carbon credits are just ridiculous. Reduction of use is the most effective.

A man we will not name goes into a movie theater and sits down. Halfway through the show he gets the shakes and decides to light up. Quickly his smoke cloud pervades the theater, and just as quickly the “climate” in the theater changes! from everyone enjoying the picture, to everyone yelling at this person and throwing popcorn at him.
Funny how not that long ago almost everyone in the theater would be smoking, and most of them believed it would have no detrimental health effects.

[marlboroughman]

"An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly
has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of
industrial civilization."

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... ecture.pdf

[bri7]

Do not open for 100,000 years:

https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-494 ... ab0a67014c

I wonder at what point in time occupants of the earth will look at us and think "what madness."

[tautologies]

We can debate whether or not climate change is real and/or caused by us until the cows come home, but we will die of old age before we know the answer. Which is why many people could give a shit less.

No we will not. If we fight over if it is real instead of what we can do, by the time most notice, it will be too late.


SimonP,
people like MB cannot be reasoned with because he just does not understand even basic science nor does he want to. He is not worth your energy as he is not capable of the mental exercise needed to engage in a productive discourse.
All you can do is spend your energy on actually changing policy, but no point in answering MB.

[Greenturtle]

Dont get me wrong, just saying there will always be people like Marl that will not accept it until it is indeed way too late.
Which is why most of my posts in this thread involve the long list of other strong reasons to move away from fossil fuels without even bringing climate change into the debate. For someone who cannot be convinced of climate change, Marl, how about all the obvious and absolutely proven pollution from burning and extraction of fossil fuel.