Thailand triumphs in UN Human Rights council bid

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

If someone wanted to pay me $100k/year, in grants, I'd be happy to produce research results the proved conclusively global warming was real and man made. Scientists are whores like everyone else that needs money.

I'm glad you're not still actively working in science.  I think if you went out with real scientists to sites in the Arctic region, Greenland, or Antarctica, you would see dedicated, hard working folks who are trying to do as good a job as possible.   But then again, if you're a GW denier, you may only see (in your mind) a bunch of charlatans trying to game the system and purposefully skewing data.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pity western governments won't invest more in nuclear. Far as I know France is the only western country to do so on a large scale, and meanwhile the greeny nutters are doing everything in their power to stop nuclear in America and the UK. Also Japan went fossil fuel after the tsunami.

If western governments actually cared enough about CC to do anything, they could, tomorrow, citing imminent death of millions as justification. That they don't, says to me that they don't actually believe in it, except as a way to tax citizens more, and increase control.

If CO2 is actually a cause of CC, the technology exists already to remove it from the atmosphere, but far as I know, the only plant in existence is in Iceland, and isn't very large.

in your closing paragraph, you admit that there's only one viable plant in the world which can tangibly grab CO2 and send it to where it won't be a problem.  Would you admit that it's new tech, and as such, if successful, will plausibly be duplicated to be used in other places?

 

Most countries ww do acknowledge the growing problems of cc and therefore sincerely want to effect changes to deal with it.  the US was holding back in the Bush 2 years,  then woke up in the Obama years (plus Obama designated the largest natural park in the world during his 2nd term), ....and now we've seen how anti-science Trump is causing the US to turn its back on the rest of the world, as if to say, "screw you. We're going to pollute, and we don't care if you pollute also."

 

Nuclear is bad for too many reasons to list here.  Yes, France is at the vanguard.  Hopefully they won't have a Chernobyl or Fukishima, but if/when they do, it will be a giant shitstorm.   Before Chernobyl and Fukishima, if you or I had walked onto the respective sites, the day before the disasters, and asked engineers there "how safe is this plant?" 

 

Invariably, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, the engineers would have cheerfully claimed, "NO PROBLEM.  DON'T BE AN ALARMIST. We have many safeguards in place.  There is no way there could be a serious breach of radioactivity here.  We have double and triple safeguards.  Don't worry your little head. Ha ha ha ha."

 

4 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Too late. The western world has been feeding a whole generation in Africa and their descendants are now all over Europe like locusts.

Another reason there has been a population explosion around the world for the past 150 yrs:

>>>  better medical.  It wasn't so long ago that doctors didn't even know what caused infection or what to do about infections.  Many women were dying in childbirth.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

56 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

I largely exonerate the scientists from this (except a few who have become activists, like Michael "Piltdown" Mann, inventor of the Hockey Stick hoax), but not those who distort the science for a political agenda, such as the media, the NGOs, the bureaucrats and the politicians.

And since you have so much respect for the IPCC read this and weep:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

 

[Jonah Tenner]

On 26.10.2017 at 3:49 AM, boomerangutang said:

Perhaps some of the predicted dates are off, for when the NW passage will be navigable year 'round .  That's lamentable, but not bad science.  The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year.    If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice.  There are thousands of scientific indicators that Earth is getting warmer.   

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Michael Chrichton

[Jonah Tenner]

On 26.10.2017 at 5:08 AM, boomerangutang said:

No they're not.  Get informed.   On the other hand, if you're determined to be anti-science, then no amount of scientific data is going to sway you from your fixed opinion.

Research in the Arctic by Norwegian scientists indicate an increase in the number of Polar Bears of about 30% during the last 11 years.

[RickBradford]

The first finding is about "warming of the atmosphere."

 

Quote

Because of fair use rules I didn't quote the first finding in its entirety. It goes on to say but it does say that the rate of change since 1950 is unprecedented.

Show me where IPCC AR5 says that, as regards warming, the "rate of change since 1950 is unprecedented".

 

The summary report is very careful in SPM 1.1 (and the scientific papers even more so) to separate the "unprecedented" claim, from the obvious statement that warming has occurred.

 

The word "unprecedented" is reserved for observations about rises in greenhouse gas emissions, as far as I recall.

 

With the basic findings of the IPCC,  I have little problem; with their distortion by activists in the media and NGOs, I have plenty.

 

Edit: Don't use Wikipedia to try to shore up your arguments. Even schoolchildren doing assignments are warned against that. It isn't reliable to any discernible degree.

Edited October 27, 2017 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

22 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Michael Chrichton

Don't get so hung up by the word 'consensus.'   It's an informal word, but can be useful in some applications.  There's consensus that gravity exists.  There's consensus that stars are far away and are hot.   I don't think anyone is proposing that 'consensus' is the same as hard scientific data.  I used the word to indicate that there's over 90% agreement by climate scientists that CC is real, it's largely human-exacerbated, and should be addressed - at least by people who care about other people and the well-being of the environment.

 

If, on the other hand, it's no big deal (as a prior poster opined), then that's a different kettle of fish.  Different folks get interested in different things.  Personally, I don't care about people who eat wild mushrooms and get sick.  That's not on my radar, so........ I'm not going to get bent out of shape whether there's more or less of that happening.

 

If I didn't care about the health of the planet, or survival of species, then I wouldn't care much about CC, larger storms, increased desertification, higher sea levels, and other results of CC.  I also wouldn't care about clean alternative power solutions.  It's easy to be cynical about such things, particularly if a person is rich and has a comfortable lifestyle.    

 

Everyone writing on this blog, if their residence was about to be flooded, could afford to go to somewhere more habitable.  Not all people in the world have the convenience (or money) to relocate to a better place.  

[boomerangutang]

27 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

Research in the Arctic by Norwegian scientists indicate an increase in the number of Polar Bears of about 30% during the last 11 years.

If I'm wrong on that issue, I stand corrected.  I happened to recently watch a Nat'l Geo special that indicated polar bears are having a tough time surviving.  I think it took place in northern Canada (different locale than Norway).  Another poster mentioned that p. bears routinely swam hundreds of miles.  That sounds alarming.  If true, that's indicative of them having big problems finding prey.  A large bear only moves as far as it needs to, in order to find food or a mate.  They're not migrating animals like monarch butterflies.

 

There is less ice cover in the Arctic, and ice lasts shorter times.   Polar bears are acclimated to ice and floes.   Less ice = less area for them to hunt for prey.   That would (at least partly) explain why they're raiding trash dumps and dumpsters near towns in northern Canada. 

[Jonah Tenner]

On 26.10.2017 at 6:28 AM, TimTang said:

The Vikings used to grow grapes to make wine on Greenland

Vikings never made wine. The grew grain on Greenland, something which is impossible now. They found a land they called Vinland (probably Nova Scotia) Vin in old norse means a grassy meadow or open area in the forest.

[Jonah Tenner]

On 26.10.2017 at 7:34 AM, MaeJoMTB said:

Wind farms and Solar cells are BS of the highest order.

Nuclear power would be the sensible way forward, but the green agenda rejects all reason.

Wind farms and Solar cells are not BS, they are, however small scale and cannot really help much in the big picture, On Nuclear power, particularly fusion, I agree, but we will not see much progress in that area before the oil lobby ceases financing the anti-everything organisations.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

I know this question wasn't aimed at me, but here's my viewpoint anyway.

 

As the mainstream media in the West is overwhelmingly Left-wing "progressive" and supportive of the alarmist climate change narrative, we are bombarded daily with one-sided climate stories which are at best exaggerated, and at worst, simply fabricated.

 

Take the widely used picture of the polar bear looking forlorn on an ice-floe, due, we were told, to climate-driven Arctic sea ice loss. The picture was a fake, a Photoshopped image, and the media knew it was. They used it anyway. Or take those regular pictures of power stations belching out noxious-looking gases which are, in the case of the West, almost entirely water vapour.

 

I cite these two examples because they are easy to explain, but there are a multitude of similar misrepresentations being perpetrated in the media every day.

 

When somebody ceaselessly tries to persuade you of something about which you want to keep an open mind, it is a reasonable strategy to remain unconvinced. Have you ever bought a used car? Then you know what I mean. 

 

I largely exonerate the scientists from this (except a few who have become activists, like Michael "Piltdown" Mann, inventor of the Hockey Stick hoax), but not those who distort the science for a political agenda, such as the media, the NGOs, the bureaucrats and the politicians.

 

That group of people couldn't give a s**t about the planet, or the people and creatures who live on it. They are engaged in a culture war against capitalism and the "patriarchy" and use climate as a fig-leaf to disguise their true agenda.

 

They are engaged in considerable and regular dishonesty, but I think I would stop short of using the word "evil" about them. Closer to the mark would be "completely possessed by a failed ideology."

Have you considered ignoring the rhetoric and pictures and just looking at the numbers, which clearly show rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, declining sea ice, and historic correlations between CO2 and global temperatures?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

The first finding is about "warming of the atmosphere."

 

Show me where IPCC AR5 says that, as regards warming, the "rate of change since 1950 is unprecedented".

 

The summary report is very careful in SPM 1.1 (and the scientific papers even more so) to separate the "unprecedented" claim, from the obvious statement that warming has occurred.

 

The word "unprecedented" is reserved for observations about rises in greenhouse gas emissions, as far as I recall.

 

With the basic findings of the IPCC,  I have little problem; with their distortion by activists in the media and NGOs, I have plenty.

 

Edit: Don't use Wikipedia to try to shore up your arguments. Even schoolchildren doing assignments are warned against that. It isn't reliable to any discernible degree.

I guess you were making a hail mary pass and hoping for some sort of miracle. Anyway, here's a quote directly from the IPCC report

"Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history... Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

[Jonah Tenner]

On 26.10.2017 at 8:50 AM, balo said:

 

I agree, this is a cycle been going on for millions of years . In the 15th century the climate were milder in Northern Europe than it is today. A new ice age will start and it will get colder again, maybe in a few hundred years.

 

A Geophysicist estimates that the next Ice age is 50,000 years away.

This one isn't finished yet. There is still ice at the poles.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Jonah Tenner

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

A Geophysicist estimates that the next Ice age is 50,000 years away.

This one isn't finished yet. There is still ice at the poles.

Once again, it isn't about the fact that there is warming. It's about the rate of warming. Once again, according to your logic, an interest rate of 1 percent on an investment is no different than an interest rate of 25 percent because in both cases the amount of your investment is increasing.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

The first finding is about "warming of the atmosphere."

 

Show me where IPCC AR5 says that, as regards warming, the "rate of change since 1950 is unprecedented".

 

The summary report is very careful in SPM 1.1 (and the scientific papers even more so) to separate the "unprecedented" claim, from the obvious statement that warming has occurred.

 

The word "unprecedented" is reserved for observations about rises in greenhouse gas emissions, as far as I recall.

 

With the basic findings of the IPCC,  I have little problem; with their distortion by activists in the media and NGOs, I have plenty.

 

Edit: Don't use Wikipedia to try to shore up your arguments. Even schoolchildren doing assignments are warned against that. It isn't reliable to any discernible degree.

 

35 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Have you considered ignoring the rhetoric and pictures and just looking at the numbers, which clearly show rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, declining sea ice, and historic correlations between CO2 and global temperatures?

To confirm what you are saying, all he would have to do is consult the IPCC 5th report which he claims to hold in high esteem.

[MaeJoMTB]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

That group of people couldn't give a s**t about the planet, or the people and creatures who live on it. They are engaged in a culture war against capitalism and the "patriarchy" and use climate as a fig-leaf to disguise their true agenda.

 

I believe (((they))) are engaged in a race war against white people.

[MaeJoMTB]

53 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

A Geophysicist estimates that the next Ice age is 50,000 years away.

This one isn't finished yet. There is still ice at the poles.

Actually NASA are predicting a new 'Maunder minimum' to start in 2020.

http://earthsky.org/space/solar-minimum-is-coming-video

Edited October 27, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

I believe (((they))) are engaged in a race war against white people.

 

For the benefit of those who might not know  neo-Nazis put these triple parenthses ((())) around the name of someone as a way of indicating they are Jewish. In other words, according to him, Jews are waging war on white people and  according to him, claims of anthropogenic global warming are part of the plot. His bigotry also explains why this poster earlier on wrote this "(as white folk are under 15% of the world population, and that's including Jews and Hispanics as white)"

[Scott]

I suggest you and (((you))) all get back to the topic of Artctic sea ice and things directly related to it.  

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

To confirm what you are saying, all he would have to do is consult the IPCC 5th report which he claims to hold in high esteem.

Don't make up stuff that I didn't say, such that I hold the IPCC report in high esteem. That's simply false.

 

I said I have little problem with it, but I have a problem with how it is distorted by activists and the innumerate nimrods in the legacy media.

 

And read SPM1.1 again, with a friend to help you if necessary.

 

Quote

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

 

That does not say — at all — that warming is unprecedented. It says it is "unequivocal", which we all know. The "observed changes" referred to, which are "unprecedented", include such things as increases in CO2, methane, and nitrous oxides in the atmosphere, as is made quite clear later in the report.

 

If it had wanted to claim that warming was "unprecedented", it would have said so. It would also have been going against the scientific position of its own authors.

 

You would have known this if you had read my earlier post, which stressed the careful wording of this part of the report. 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

If you own a ski resort or a tourist lodge next to a glacier, you're probably going to be disappointed, because that glacier has been receding noticeably for the past few decades, and that recession is accelerating.   

[boomerangutang]

The big melt: Glacier National Park is losing its glaciers
By Steve Almasy and Mayra Cuevas, CNN
Updated May 11, 2017

There once were 150 glaciers; now there are fewer than 40
Federal scientist says they will all disappear this century
(CNN)The 37 glaciers remaining at Glacier National Park are vanishing.

In the past half century, some of the ice formations in Montana have lost 85% of their size, and the average shrinkage is 39%, a study released by the U.S. Geological Survey and Portland State University says. 

One day, they will be gone, the study's lead scientist said Wednesday.
"The trend right now is that they are inexorably going into their final demise. There is no chance they will go into rebirth," Dan Fagre said. "In several decades they will be mostly gone. They will grow so small that they will disappear. They will certainly be gone before the end of the century."
And humans are responsible, he said.
"There are variations in the climate but it is humans that have made all those variations warmer," he said. "The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle."

Images on the web site show the perimeter of Chaney Glacier in Glacier National Park in 1966, 1998, 2005, and 2015. 
 

SOURCE

[Srikcir]

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

If you own a ski resort or a tourist lodge next to a glacier, you're probably going to be disappointed, because that glacier has been receding noticeably for the past few decades, and that recession is accelerating.   

"Glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the
rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the United
States have shrunk dramatically."

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/glaciers.html

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

"Glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the
rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the United
States have shrunk dramatically."

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/glaciers.html

Right wingers are going to look at those photos and, true to their conspiracy-hungry proclivities, will say they're faked/photoshopped.  They'll say something like, 'how can the photo on the left be real, when there's no snow/ice on the mountain in the rear." 

 

Reasonable people among us will know the answer: the lighting is different.   But right-wingers are so quick to fabricate reasons for fakery.  Right after the devastating fires in California, right wingers were lighting up the internet, saying "How is it possible that houses and cars were burned, but nearby trees still have green leaves?!?"   Right-wingers were abuzz with theories that it must have been microwave attack from satellites, or some other nefarious hocus pocus.

 

I resided in northern California for a quarter century, and have first hand experience with large fires affecting houses and forests.  I can explain how trees survive fires, but right-wingers don't want to hear reasonable explanations, they would much rather grab onto weird twisted explanations.  The same folks who believe Obama is an African Muslim, are the same sorts who believe CC is a liberal hoax aimed at soaking tax dollars for greedy scientists.

[GOLDBUGGY]

I for one am not worried about this as I figure we will be hit by a large Asteroid long before famers have to move to the North Pole to grow potatoes.

 

I mean it is like trying to throw a Basket Ball through the hoop from center court. Not an easy task and you might have to stand there all day trying. But sooner or later, one will get in.

[MaeJoMTB]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I for one am not worried about this as I figure we will be hit by a large Asteroid long before famers have to move to the North Pole to grow potatoes.

 

I mean it is like trying to throw a Basket Ball through the hoop from center court. Not an easy task and you might have to stand there all day trying. But sooner or later, one will get in.

Nah, Zombie Apocalypse fer sure. 

[MaeJoMTB]

22 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I resided in northern California for a quarter century, and have first hand experience with large fires affecting houses and forests.  I can explain how trees survive fires, but right-wingers don't want to hear reasonable explanations, they would much rather grab onto weird twisted explanations.  The same folks who believe Obama is an African Muslim, are the same sorts who believe CC is a liberal hoax aimed at soaking tax dollars for greedy scientists.

OK, so you still haven't explained how a warmer climate would harm me?

If it were warmer, I could live in the UK ..... I want it warmer.

And glaciers melting, who cares, it's a long way away from me and I live 300m above sea level.

More CO2 ........ plants will grow bigger and stronger ...... cheaper food.

 

Global warming nuts have two hurdles ...... first they gotta convince people it's real ...... then they gotta convince people it matters.

Edited October 29, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[RickBradford]

Quote

Global warming nuts have two hurdles ...... first they gotta convince people it's real ...... then they gotta convince people it matters.

They've been trying for 20 years to do just that, at a cost of trillions of dollars, and have achieved nothing of substance. And they never will achieve anything — not that they really care anyway.

 

(By the way, they're not "nuts"; not all of them, anyway.)

 

Just think how much good could have been done in the developing world if all the money p**sed away on the global warming threat had been used to prevent malaria, cure cataracts, provide clean drinking water, immunisation of children, address malnutrition.

 

But that would require compassion for humanity, which the Green/Left utterly lacks. They would rather agonise over a trivial threat to polar bears.

[joeyg]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

They've been trying for 20 years to do just that, at a cost of trillions of dollars, and have achieved nothing of substance. And they never will achieve anything — not that they really care anyway.

 

(By the way, they're not "nuts"; not all of them, anyway.)

 

Just think how much good could have been done in the developing world if all the money p**sed away on the global warming threat had been used to prevent malaria, cure cataracts, provide clean drinking water, immunisation of children, address malnutrition.

 

But that would require compassion for humanity, which the Green/Left utterly lacks. They would rather agonise over a trivial threat to polar bears.

You are in the wrong place for common sense and straightforwardness...

[Srikcir]

23 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Many glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the United
States have shrunk dramatically.

A plenitude of examples:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.php 

Top 1919; Bottom 2005

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, MaeJoMTB said:

OK, so you still haven't explained how a warmer climate would harm me?

If it were warmer, I could live in the UK ..... I want it warmer.

And glaciers melting, who cares, it's a long way away from me and I live 300m above sea level.

More CO2 ........ plants will grow bigger and stronger ...... cheaper food.

 

Global warming nuts have two hurdles ...... first they gotta convince people it's real ...... then they gotta convince people it matters.

Are you quite sure it would be warmer in the UK? what warms the uk now is the Gulf Stream. Without that, given the UK's latitude, it would enjoy the same balmy weather as Newfoundland, Canada.. The Gulf Stream's circulation could be threatened by the massive amount of fresh water melting off of Greenland.

What you clearly don't get about glaciers is that they provide the much of the water that feeds many of the world's major rivers - including the Mekong. This is especially crucial during yearly dry seasons when these rivers could dry up. They are crucial to agriculture.

And no, plants don't necessarily grow bigger and stronger when CO2 levels increase  Some do. But even then, there would be other inputs necessary like more water and more nutrition from the soil.  Not only that, grain crops, which are the crucial crops that feed the human race, actually lose some of their nutritional value when exposed to higher CO2 levels.

But apart from these points, you're 100 percent correct.