MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
That particular chart I posted me from co2colotion.org. I liked the way that chart looked since it divided the timeframe up into eras people can relate to. I did cross reference it against several other credible sources with a similar time frame for accuracy. Main differences were the source of the data; deep sea fossils, ice cores, stratum layers, etc. But they all showed similar data with no differences in statistical significance. We're sitting in the neighborhood of 350-500 ppm of atmospheric CO2 today depending on the source. The most notable source I cross referenced was Texas A&M's data from deep sea shell fossils.
I do want to note that there are other factors such as water vapor, methane, nitrogen, nitrous oxide and other gasses that contribute to the earth retaining heat. So the chart contains only one factor, but most agree that CO2 is the most significant.
I also want to point out that when looking for sources to cross reference, a high number of them basically mimicked the one you posted with the Y axis going to about 800,000 years. The bulk of those sources contained articles that were very pro climate change as it is being portrayed to the public. So I feel they were too biased trying to (for lack of a better phrase) push an agenda. This is why I'm skeptical of articles that overly rely on statistics for their argument and will dig deeper into the subject. If you haven't read How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff you should. It's a relatively short read, shows how easy it is to use statistics to your advantage without actually falsifying results, and very true.
If the link works correctly, here's one to download a pdf. If not just search "how to lie with statistics pdf" and it should be at the top of the search.
How to Lie With Statistics
Speeddemon
Well-known member
Good point @MadAsAHatter.
One thing that perhaps wasn't clear from my point, this is also an and/and thing for me, meaning it's perfectly possible to accept that climate change is a thing, while also not falling for some pushed agenda from governments that want to influence your personal life to a level where you have to give up all sorts of comforts and commodities, while at the same time giving big industries (like coal/steel/oil) a free pass basically to keep on polluting, "because of the economy".
If you want people to get involved, show the good example. For instance, NOT like all those Davos rich folks showing up in private jets for that World Economic Forum telling us to not fly for holiday/vacations once every few years...
And if you want people to get solar panels (which I did and said, but VonDumbfire was too dense to get that, he'd rather play Temu-Anselmo tough guy
), then don't change the fucking rules for subsidizing a few years later, because a new government is suddenly anti.
Regardless of your political beliefs, everyone is helped with proper long term planning and policies.
One thing that perhaps wasn't clear from my point, this is also an and/and thing for me, meaning it's perfectly possible to accept that climate change is a thing, while also not falling for some pushed agenda from governments that want to influence your personal life to a level where you have to give up all sorts of comforts and commodities, while at the same time giving big industries (like coal/steel/oil) a free pass basically to keep on polluting, "because of the economy".
If you want people to get involved, show the good example. For instance, NOT like all those Davos rich folks showing up in private jets for that World Economic Forum telling us to not fly for holiday/vacations once every few years...
And if you want people to get solar panels (which I did and said, but VonDumbfire was too dense to get that, he'd rather play Temu-Anselmo tough guy
), then don't change the fucking rules for subsidizing a few years later, because a new government is suddenly anti. Regardless of your political beliefs, everyone is helped with proper long term planning and policies.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Solar panels aren't green energy.And if you want people to get solar panels (which I did and said, but VonDumbfire was too dense to get that, he'd rather play Temu-Anselmo tough guy
G
Geo
Well-known member
Too dumb to not be intentional.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
H
harddriver
Well-known member
Facts are Kryptonite for those with an agenda.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
Not 1 new reservoir was built after Proposition 1 was passed November 4, 2014 by the taxpayers to modernize the water management and fire management. Maybe in another ten years they can ask the taxpayers for more money for projects that will not be built........
On November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. Proposition 1 authorized $510 million in Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) funding. Funds are allocated to 12 hydrologic region-based Funding Areas.
https://cwc.ca.gov/Water-Storage
Proposition 1 of 2014 dedicated $2.7 billion for investments in water storage projects. The California Water Commission is administering the Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) to fund the public benefits associated with these projects.
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/why-...s-been-built-since-prop-1-was-passed-in-2014/
Water Commission is ready, but project proponents control the schedule
By Teresa Alvarado and Matthew Swanson, February 9, 2022 8:51 am
In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1: The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act. The $7.5 billion bond dedicated $2.7 billion for the public benefits of new water storage projects. Some ask, “Why have no new reservoirs been built in the seven years since?” Rest assured, there are projects in the works. All recently passed a key milestone and are moving forward.
Any large-scale water storage project is complex and requires a high degree of planning, engineering, coordination — and significant financing. The California Water Commission has actively overseen the proposed projects over the past six years to help ensure they meet statutory requirements, progress at the rate dictated by the bond legislation, and meet the public benefits promised to voters.
John Stossel from 4 years ago.....
On November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. Proposition 1 authorized $510 million in Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) funding. Funds are allocated to 12 hydrologic region-based Funding Areas.
https://cwc.ca.gov/Water-Storage
Proposition 1 Water Storage Investment Program: Funding the Public Benefits of Water Storage Projects
Proposition 1 of 2014 dedicated $2.7 billion for investments in water storage projects. The California Water Commission is administering the Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) to fund the public benefits associated with these projects.
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/why-...s-been-built-since-prop-1-was-passed-in-2014/
Why Have No New Reservoirs Been Built Since Prop. 1 Was Passed in 2014?
Water Commission is ready, but project proponents control the schedule
By Teresa Alvarado and Matthew Swanson, February 9, 2022 8:51 am
In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1: The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act. The $7.5 billion bond dedicated $2.7 billion for the public benefits of new water storage projects. Some ask, “Why have no new reservoirs been built in the seven years since?” Rest assured, there are projects in the works. All recently passed a key milestone and are moving forward.
Any large-scale water storage project is complex and requires a high degree of planning, engineering, coordination — and significant financing. The California Water Commission has actively overseen the proposed projects over the past six years to help ensure they meet statutory requirements, progress at the rate dictated by the bond legislation, and meet the public benefits promised to voters.
John Stossel from 4 years ago.....
Last edited:
Kapo_Polenton
Well-known member
Listen, as a Canadian I have to ask you... why do you and the media keep running with Jordan Peterson or the leader of the opposition party ( and likely next prime Minister) as being " Far Right"? It's incredibly lazy. I listened to a few minutes of that video and it is embarrassing to listen to them make snarky comments about him not looking into the camera when he is in thought or formulating an argument. I bet those 3 are real fun at a party, we all know the type. Does "Far Right" now mean " they don't see things like I do so they are wrong"? Seems to. I personally can't stand Peterson, the dude talks too much and likes to hear himself talk. Does that make him right Wing because he is a white male? Poilievre may not be everyone's choice but after 10 years of the gov and spending we have had, he is the inevitable choice and at least he speaks about subjects with some understanding of how they work compared to who is leaving office now. Just to give you an idea, the very people who voted for Trudeau now appear to have soured on him and his party. These are people of all races and ethnicities, not just white adult men. I guess they are "Far Right" as well.
Every 5 - 10 years we switch governments and this is how things work in a lot of countries for good reasons. After 10 years of being told not to have pride in our country and it's heritage, it is nice to hear a politician come out and say it is ok to be Canadian and to have Canadian western values and religion. It's ok to think about the sectors we need growth in and how to tailor immigration to support that need etc..