I don't think the deal will pass (I haven't seen the deal so I can't speak on whether I want it to pass or not). But I still suspect the reason BJ has that smug smile on his face is that he knows the request for an extension will be declined by at least one country...

Hungary?

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, he has a link in there. The problem is you've got to give them a lot of information to actually gain access to the graphic. But I assume it's the real thing. Still, it doesn't show whether disasters have been on the increase. I did find this from 2005

Disasters Increase, Death Rates Drop

New figures show that the number of disasters worldwide has increased, death rates have decreased, but the number of people affected has increased.

In 2005, there was an 18 percent rise in disasters that killed 91,900 people, and 360 natural disasters in 2005 compared to 305 in 2004, according to official figures issued by the Belgian Université Catholique de Louvain's Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) in Geneva.

https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Disasters-Increase-Death-Rates.html

 

And then there's the fact that apparently, earthquakes and tsunamis caused more death than any other kind of natural disaster. 

https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/42895

 

The point being that data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. There are reasons that death rates could be dropping that don't correlate with the frequency of natural disasters.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that "data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean" in the same post where you somehow fail to recognise the difference between weather related incidents (allegedly caused by climate changes) and other natural disasters?

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis don't fall into the "weather related" category, they are categorised as "natural disasters". For that reason I specifically included information regarding the categories included (Droughts, Storms, Hurricanes, Wildfires (Forest fires), Extreme cold, Heatwaves and Landslides).

But hey, cudos for pointing out that CRED correctly described that the number of deaths due to weather related incidents have decreased. And again, if you want to know by how much you can simply look at the graph I posted. ????

Is there anything specific you want me to look into, like droughts? I'm sure you'll be able to find hundreds of articles where it is claimed that droughts are more frequent and severe the last 20 years due to "climate changes" (almost guaranteed in the Guardian). But are they? Hurricanes and hurricane landfalls are often claimed to have increased and to be more severe the last 20 years. But is that true?

What I'm saying is, don't believe everything you read in the Guardian or Washington Post.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You should check the date of that argo link. It's 10 years old.

 

As for farmers, they are reporting big changes and mostly suffering from them. Except in the far north where climate change has made planting temperate climate crops possible. Except in the tundra regions where it's been a disaster for agriculture.

 

Europe’s Winemakers Break With Tradition as Temperatures Rise

Vineyards adapt by growing vines at higher altitudes or using new varieties of grape; traditionalists chafe at changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-winemakers-break-with-tradition-as-temperatures-rise-11567245600

 

How Climate Change in Iowa is Changing U.S. Politics

 

https://time.com/5669023/iowa-farmers-climate-policy/

 

Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground

 

For the 5.4 million people who live in Russia’s permafrost zone, the new climate has disrupted their homes and their livelihoods. Rivers are rising and running faster, and entire neighborhoods are falling into them. Arable land for farming has plummeted by more than half, to just 120,000 acres in 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

 

I decided to check how bad it actually is. And when I say CHECK I mean analyse some real data rather than trust media and look at whatever pictures they post for you guys to see.

It actually doesn't look too bad. At least the weather isn't claiming more casualties than they did 100 years ago. I'll dig around a little to see if I can find any D-A-T-A regarding crops and populations as well.

Data is king!

*All data from CRED (https://www.emdat.be/database)

One question: is this when I can expect posters to try to discredit the source and accuse me of lies (as well as accusations of not posting a link to the data)...?

1 hour ago, pgs said:

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

I read an article somewhere about geoenergy and heat exchangers. It was mentioned that Norway is about to ban the use of oil boilers. I can't find the article now but if I recall correctly there were in the neighbourhood of 100K oil boilers still in use in Norway. Sweden, in comparison, had half that amount.

The most popular heating technology was electricity. The second most popular was geoenergy (they drill a hole in the ground to some 100m and pull the heat out of the ground with a ground source heat pump). Pretty cool technology.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

A clue is the word link in blue

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Someone else who doesn’t understand the difference between something written in a graphic and a link to the source of the graphic.

Well, I guess I operate on a completely different level of understanding than what you do since I had no problem finding and reviewing the source as it was written in clear text.

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's the original image you claimed you linked to:

I have never claimed to have linked to that image. I claimed to have referenced the data set on the page I linked to. NASA:a data set.

You're wrong again.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason I ask for a link to the graphic you posted is to confirm where you got it.

 

Don’t worry about the source giving me ‘cooties’, just be open about where you are getting the information you post.

It says on the graph...

*facepalm*

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Sometimes it's just the wrong link. As in post #1776.

It's not the wrong link. 

How hard can it be? Here's a screenshot. Pay particular attention to the heading: "Facts" and "Global Temperature". I have used exactly the same data as NASA. The data is available on that page as well.

I'm sorry but I simply have to ask: are you trolling or are you actually serious?

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Posting a graphic with NASA written on it is not evidence that it came from NASA.

 

It’s why you rarely, if ever, provide a link to the source of the graphics you post.

I always provide a link to my sources. I did so In this case as well.

More questions?

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Thanks for the link. But it didn't actually show the graph in your post. So I'm not sure where it came from.   But there was this graph on that page:

 

Looks to me like the rate jumps around 1975 and then again in about 2010.

And here's a link to the temperature data year by year starting in 1880: 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

A general advice is that you stop looking at pictures and instead analyse the data. The graph YOU refer to displays the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, not the rate of increase (which is NOT accelerating). In kindergarten language, that means "what is the temperature". Yes, the mean temperature is increasing.

The graph I provided shows the annual increase.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who needs statistical analytical tools when we have Forethat telling us what we should be seeing?

 

 

It's not me telling you, it's NASA. 

More questions?

No, you don't recognise the difference between increase and accelerate. Let's leave it there.

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

It's not accelerating. Please keep to the facts or at least learn the difference between increasing and accelerated rate.

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Actually, XR was set up by anarchists.

 

Or, to be more accurate, bored middle-class malcontents playing at being anarchists. Just check out the CV of one Robin Boardman-Pattinson to see the typical XR activist profile.

 

He has just enough brains to be able to superglue himself to structures, and easily enough money to go skiing in the Alps and take tropical holidays in Bali.

 

That's a hell of a way to save the planet.

I believe he failed that too, to be honest...

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Last minute brinkmanship - wonder who'll fold first?

 

Nice to see a photo of Johnson where he belongs - behind bars! ????

Belonging is a matter of perspective. It could be that Johnson is in front of the bars - not behind them.

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Were not the streets of Manhatten supposed to be under sea water by now, and what about the Pacific islands actually growing in size instead of vanishing?

I guess so. I thought the threats of the were-rabbit were substantially more real, to be fair.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 For people who have nothing concrete to offer, it's a common ploy to resort to predicting the future. That's the great thing about the future. You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it.

Predicting the future, you say...? Doomsday prophecies? Cataclysmic events? Mass extinction? End of civilisation? The Ware-rabbit? Revelation 8:10?

The concept isn't exactly new. Scare the cr*p out of people by claiming something horrible what will happen in the future unless they repent, typically by making someone a favour. Or even more common; by paying money.

The problem for those predicting the future is that the future eventually becomes present time. The most common solution to this small predicament is to simply ignore previous predictions and hope that when the future eventually DOES arrive, people have all forgotten about the whole thing. Ultimately, the future becomes the past. 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

5 hours ago, samran said:

On this thread all I’ve seen is unrestrained vitriol directed towards a 16 year old girl, references to discredited tabloid TV documentaries, and speculative whataboutisms like your 50/50 comment. 

 

At every stage in history you have your self interested parties, your luddites, your self interested luddites. 

 

Add to this to the flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and those culture warriors who for them this issue is simply another front line in the war against those pinko facist communist lesbian socialists who have simply made it all up.

 

At any point in history where momentous change was on society, women’s rights, civil rights in the US, anti-segregation, slavery - you name it, anything that threatened the world view of the status quo you’d have the same types out and ranting against it. 

 

If this was a debate 100 years ago about introducing steam trains you blokes would be out on force penning letters to the editor talking up the horse and buggy industry and bemoaning this new fangled work of the devil. 

 

This debate is no different as we can see on this thread and this picture basically sums it up.

 

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

Just now, samran said:

What’s that new saying saying going about: ‘the most dangerous thing is old people with access to the internet’.

Finally, something we agree on.

39 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Care to respond to his point?

Not really. You probably need to approach the person who wrote the piece you're quoting. Channel 4, perhaps?