44 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: This Was The Moment The Rise Of The Oceans Began To Slow”

  1. The GloBull Warming Carbon Tax Thieves are not going to back down they have been promised 90 Trillion Tax Dollars in the Paris Accord 2 Trillion per year. They are salivating thinking of all the BILLIONS they can siphon off as it passes through their sticky fingers.
    Go Buy A Yellow Vest and Go Blockade every Provincial Parliament and especially the one in Ottawa.
    You have been disarmed, you have been tax raped, and food taken out of your families mouths and soon when they can get their censorship in place you will be gagged with your own dirty socks.
    Fight back while you can. Start by ending about 50% of all Government Programs.
    If you examine for example Healthcare in Alberta, at one time they had over 50 pages of executives VP’s and managers. Then blame the cost of Nursing and Doctors. Clean house. Way to many levels of government way to many government employees sucking our blood.

    1. Watcher: EXACTLY!! I feel the same way. FOLLOW THE MONEY…THE GREEDY ARE GETTING RICH at the expense of the regular working people. We need to get our voices heard by saying NO MORE. Patrick Moore is right the sea has been having seasonal fluctuations caused by winds, ocean currants, temperatures and atmospheric pressure ect. Civil Engineers are quacks always think they know it ALL…they DON’T.

      1. The Experts at NASA are predicting the possibility of a new Maunder Minimum due to lack of solar activity. Sun spots have just about disappeared. This is a cycle going back millennia.
        The GloBull warming Thieves are using data from the last 30 years, cherrypicked from a planets weather cycles that are 4.5 Billion years old. As the planet cools ice will form, which means sea levels will drop. The largest glacier in the world the Greenland Glacier has been advancing 26 ft a year since 2016.
        We are headed in to a Global Cooling Trend. Hopefull all of the AGW Thieves are locked up for fraud at some point.
        https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity
        Greenlands Glacier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHcB5EFDylc
        Buy a wood splitter and a chainsaw boys and girls

  2. If the sea level rises, all the coastal people can move to Alberta. Much cheaper than spending trillions to build dikes or move houses.

    Don’t worry it will be warmer and snow free. 🙂

    1. At a millimeter a year it would take 1,000 years to raise a meter. The only people who are going to drown will be pretty damn slow. If they simply stopped building any new structures under 5 meters above sea level, they will have 5,000 years covered. What I’m worried about is worse case prediction says Winnipeg will have the climate of Minneapolis. How will they prevent sunburn in January.

  3. “Trillions will be spent.”

    Exactly. That’s the whole point of the exercise.

    And, by the way, that exercise will never, ever end. NEVER.

    As it is, the “carbon tax” on natural gas bills in British Columbia started at 50% of the cost of the natural gas used in late 2008 to today’s 112%.

    In other words, you will have to pay and pay and pay for your “sins”. You will never forgiven.

  4. Whoever thought of taxing energy – brilliant. Devious, yes, but brilliant.

    1. Yep brilliant.

      The carbon tax was supposed to reduce fossil fuel consumption. So let’s look at BC. Gross gasoline sales in 2008 (the year the their carbon tax was introduced) = 4.6 billion litres. Gross sales in 2017 = 5.2 billion litres.

      Oops, gasoline sales are up not down. Better call Justin and Climate Barbie; they can explain why up really means down. I’m sure a substitute drama teacher / snow board instructor and a lawyer can concoct some explanation.

      1. Joe,the population of B.C. DID grow by almost 600,000 in that period, from 4.349 million in 2008 to 4.922 million in 2017. Until the NDP were elected,there was a lot of construction for the LNG pipeline and refinery/seaport, so that could account for a lot of the rise in fuel consumption.
        It was sure nice 3 or 4 years back to go up the Yellowhead highway for my annual moose hunt and see dozens of Atco trailers on their way north and west for accommodations for the gas line workers. Last year I don’t remember seeing any trailers being shipped up there at all.
        The oil/gas business sure employs a lot of people here in B.C., at least they did before governments got involved and f***ed everything up.

        1. Don, Thanks for your comment.

          I know why the sales of gasoline are higher, and your population explanation is part of it. But the Paris commitment was to reduce CO2 emissions – regardless of population growth! This means less gasoline use, less natural gas use in BC, etc. The carbon tax was supposed to do that!

          I don’t believe in global warming prevention.

          Furthermore for all those who believe in trying to prevent global warming, it’s not going to happen with a carbon tax unless you make the tax ten to thirty times what it is now.

          Plus the politicians will just spend the money on more social programs and encourage more people to come to Canada. Thus increasing emissions.

          1. Joe,
            Actually, it’s worse than you suggest. Between 2008 and 2018, almost 2.5 million ADDITIONAL vehicles crossed from BC into the US, and everyone of those filled their tanks to the limit (most people I know heading south ensure that their tanks are near empty and then fill up just before returning). Plus, it is well known that quite a few people head south with extra gas containers, just to save the ~$0.75/litre. If that gasoline were counted in BC, the rise in gas consumption would be much higher.

            A study ( a few years old) by Pacific Analytics (pacificanalytics.ca) using a very detailed model of vehicle fuel consumption in BC, showed that the BC carbon tax of 6.7 cents/litre reduced fuel consumption by 0.8%.

            I actually agree with the carbon tax, but only because I’d rather pay less in income taxes, not because it impacts fuel use, since it doesn’t. Of course, the spanner in the works is that implementing the carbon tax will not lead to decreased income taxes; it will only lead to more government spending on, say, subsidizing electric vehicles (and don’t get me started on the stupidity of providing $millions to relatively wealthy people in order to reduce temps by 0.000000000000000000001 degree by 2050).

          2. …it’s not going to happen with a carbon tax unless you make the tax ten to thirty times what it is now…

            WRONG..!! The issue is SIMPLE. CO2 Taxation has Dick all to do with CO2 Emissions, the environment or Climate for that matter. IT IS however, intended to make you POORER…very much poorer… to a state of Enrgy POVERTY. See Ontario for a mild example of what I believe is coming….

            And that is the GOAL of the UN – Globalists – Progressives and ECO-Nazi’s like Gerald Butts. When you are poor, you dont have kids cause you just cant afford them….They Want a world population of 1Billion souls – thats it. And via any mechanism they can conjure: Euthanazia of Seniors – Massive Taxation – Massive migration of Low life that will Destroy our Social and Health Services….oh yea.!!

            CO2 Taxation is just the begining – I See Massive Changes to Fuel Standards coming: a Min of 25% mandated Ethanol in RUG. The Nazi’s are not stupid – nor do thy give a shit about emissions…FACT is that you will lose near 17% of your current mileage and therefore have to fill up 17% more often…why do they want that..? THE TAX TAKE….Hello.??? and you’ll be poorer once again even more so.

            Pretty soon your car will not be “yours”….Govt will use Tech to slow your vehicle down if you speed & Fine you if you do, automatically…likely right off your diminishing paycheque.

            You will be in time forced to use whatever piss poor “mass transit” is available….herded like Fkn Sheep.

            THX – 1138 Anyone……???

            Unless we REVOLT – unfortunately, Canadians have taken it up the (_i_) for so long…it wll likely never happen.

    3. Taxing income was also brilliant. It has brought trillions upon trillions in governments.

      And it won’t ever, ever stop.

      In other words, governments don’t give a rat’s behind what they tax as long as it turns out to be a cash cow.

  5. Under the worst case sea rise scenario, we’ll get our oil to tidewater through the port of Pembina-Emerson.

    1. I have it on good authority the melting Arctic ice is resulting in the mantle of the Earth rising ( construction people in Manitoba know all about soil bounce or is it gumbo). Anyway, this means that in sync with global warming and within 12 years the Red River will reverse to flow south. We can build a tanker port in St. Boniface and ship it south to the Mississippi.

      1. Put some locks on the Missouri and barge the oil from Southern Alberta to New Orleans. Wikipedia says Missouri barges only go as far as Sioux City, Iowa.

  6. This Natal Cicuto really thinks his crap doesn’t stink does he? I wonder how much he stands to make off of these “trillions spent”?

  7. Is he referring to SNC-Lavelin civil engineers working on tax payer funded “dike adjustment contracts”?

  8. Patrick Moore could be more instructive here. The sea level chart he shows is accurate, but it reflects land rise rather than sea level decline.

    It is similarly disingenuous to show a chart for the Mississippi delta that shows a level increase of 9mm per year. The land is subsiding.

    As far as we can tell, globally sea levels have been rising at a couple of mm per year with no acceleration due to anthropogenic global warming.

    As an aside, scientists claim that they can measure sea levels affected by storms, tides, winds and waves to a fraction of a millimeter from satellites thousands of kilometers high!

    Everything you need to know here:

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

  10. $Trillions$ in Civil Engineering contracts are at stake!!!

    Breathlessly exclaims the Canadian Civil Engineer. Huh? Isn’t that what the “Fossil Fuel” industry accused of? Only caring about $$$ … their only incentive (“to kill the planet”) … is $$$? You don’t think $Trillions$ in Civil Engineering and “green” contracts are an incentive to LIE about “saving the planet”? Don’t be stupid. This whole climate change … sea level rise ruse .., is ALL about money and power.

    Here’s an idea … the government and all universities should be mandated to spend an equal amount of research dollars for PRO-climate Change science and Skeptic-climate change science. You would suddenly see equal weight given to ALL climate hypothesis’s

  12. Why does this topic and the shrill purveyors of this fraud keep reminding me of Stalin’s Lysenkoism?

    Hmmm? An ocean port at Pembina-Emerson sounds like a good idea. Just as long as the Pembina Institute is not involved.

  13. // This is where I live //

    This is where he doesn’t live:
    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=970-011
    It’s a good resource.
    &
    What’s the difference between global and local sea level?
    Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

    1. 3.13 +/- 0.13 mm/yr in a straight line fit over a century. That shows that whatever causes the rise has been in effect for at least a century (and probably much longer) and not due to the recent increase in atmospheric CO2.
      So called sea level rises documented in specific locations (most notably in Venice, Italy and New York City) are due almost entirely to subsidence, as both cities have “reclaimed” land from the sea by landfill, which has been subsiding.
      I found a website that screams CO2 levels has never been higher, and only shows levels since 1000 A.D. In fact, the Eocene is historically low in CO2 levels, which have fallen drastically since the Jurassic, and is at perhaps 1/6th the level then, which did NOT cause runaway global warming.
      That is the first argument against CAGW. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels are much closer to perilously low than perilously high. We know a concentration of 2500 ppm does not lead to runaway global warming, we also know a concentration below 250 ppm will lead to death for all plants and then animals.
      The second argument is in fact is a slightly higher CO2 concentration a bad thing. We know greenhouse keepers elevate the CO2 concentration to facilitate plant growth. CO2 is plant food. Higher CO2 concentration, temperature, and moisture facilitate plant growth. Cereal crops have registered historic harvests almost annually. Part of it is due to improving the specie, but part of that is due to increased CO2 concentration. Satellite views of the globe show that the Earth as a whole is greening, inclusive of the Sahara. It turns out, CAGW alarmists are not “Greenies” at all.
      Thirdly, anthropogenic CO2 hardly accounts for the current increase in CO2 concentration. It is hubris to think we puny humans scratching out a living on this huge planet can have that effect. Try as we may, we only cause a fraction of that increase. That means if we were all truly “carbon neutral” as a species, the atmospheric increase in CO2 will hardly slow down. It is much more like Quixote tilting at windmills to effect such nonsensical endeavors as “carbon capture.” It doan make no difference no how. In fact, a modern day Quixote should really be tilting at windmills to bring those environmentally dangerous monsters down. In addition to being the most dangerous threat to flying creatures, their low incessant hum has been documented to cause illness and discomfort to humans. But I digress. Those monsters will die a natural death if the powers that be will accept that anthropogenic CO2 is good, not bad.

  14. The key point in your graph and Moore’s is that there is no accelerating trend even though CO2 has gone up rapidly.

    1. Exactly ! And NO climate “scientists” model predicted anything close to our current 30 year flat temp. trend. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete FARCE!

    2. CO2 has gone up rapidly? You need to define rapidly. Your rapidly rise might be my slowly rise. Don’t select words that a junk scientist would use.

  15. There is nothing hornier than an engineering consultant with the whiff of government money in his nostrils! And in the past couple of days there has been a bit of a stir involving electric seaplanes. I would bet a little detective work would uncover a University Research department hungry for a series of taxpayer funded handouts.

  16. The civil engineers are just responding to what their employers are demanding. The fact that they are designing dikes does not mean that they have done any research, or even have any care, as to whether any area sea level will rise. They are hired to do a job, and they are doing it. It is their employers (gov’t agencies) who are deluded.
    A the, a the, a the, a that’s all….

    1. First Timer,
      He just knows that civil Engineers build things. They build sewer systems, but you don’t want them giving you a colonoscopy. They build structures in nuclear power plants, but don’t know shit about fusion….
      This loose definition of what is a scientific opinion makes up 96% of the CAGW drivel

      1. The short form, from school, was that Mechanical Engineers build weapons and Civil Engineers build targets.

  18. For OldBruin & rockyt
    Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia
    We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based
    on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast.
    The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent
    sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment.
    Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950.
    Sea levelthen increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further
    period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until
    the late 19th century.
    Since then, sea level has risen at an average
    rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase
    of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865
    and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach,
    we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global
    temperature for at least the past millennium.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf

    To belabor a point. Sea level changes volume with added heat; therefore climate change, not just climate change caused by CO2 levels.

    1. “Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach,
      we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global
      temperature for at least the past millennium.”
      No. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach,
      you demonstrate that these sea-level changes can be modeled to be consistent with global
      temperature for at least the past millennium.

    2. “Sea level changes volume with added heat; therefore climate change, not just climate change caused by CO2 levels.”

      And the same can be said about CO2 levels. Increasing ocean temperatures release CO2 from the oceans. What we are witnessing is 100% evidence that we are coming out of an ice age and zero evidence of man made global warming.

    3. dizzy, you and every asshole who thinks that global temps and sea level can be accurately measured, really need to take a course in how to set up a study to do suck measurements. It’s like the computer climate modeling, can’t be done, as there is not a program written that can model climate, and there isn’t a computer alive that could run it if that program was written. Your lack of math thinking skills is hangin out big time here

    4. So, that’s 21mm over 10 years, 21cm (8 inches) over 100 years……..

      RUN TO THE HILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      /sarc

  19. So, here’s something to think about. I’ve been out of the career of my original training for over 10 years, but the Land Surveyors/Civil Engineers regularly publish, annually I believe, their guides for geoids, SEA LEVEL, and datums, in order to perform their work -accurately-. This is to perform ACCURATE GPS Surveying throughout our land, modern Survey grade GPS systems can measure elevations to accuracies of ±5mm.
    Math doesn’t lie. The geoid doesnt change, so it’s up to their published sea level guides.
    Sorry, I don’t hear either of the associations, national or provincially, screaming to the heavens about out of control rise in sea levels, not a peep.
    This is all, and only political!

  20. The weakness in Mr. Moore’s argument is one data point doesn’t prove much of anything.

  21. The fake “man made global warming scientists” always skip over a core fact: there is zero correlation between CO2 and warming (or for that matter cooling). The graph of the two over the last ~12,000 years of the Holocene period show they move in the opposite direction just as often as in the same direction. NO ONE has shown let alone proven increases in CO2 cause “global warming”. The best science to date is warming/cooling has all to due with the sun. Then factor in the axis tilt of the earth, how the oceans store energy, water vapor and down the line. Last, every single computer model the ICCP (UN) uses – 32 of them – has been wrong. Every one!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation