Australian groups launch global wave of climate protests ahead of summit

[rooster59]

 

Australian groups launch global wave of climate protests ahead of summit

By Alison Bevege

 

A supplied photo shows a tall ship displaying banners as it sails on Sydney Harbour in Australia, September 8, 2018 as part of global climate change protests across 95 countries organized by the New York-based lobby group 350.org. Steven Saphore-350.org/Handout via REUTERS

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Tall ships carrying climate change banners sailed into Australia's Sydney Harbour on Saturday launching a wave of protest across 95 countries organised by New York-based lobby group 350.org.

 

Climate change is of great concern in the Pacific region with Pacific Island nations declaring on Friday that it is their "single greatest threat" and urging Washington to return to the Paris Agreement on climate.

 

350.org, which had revenue of $16.8 million according to its 2017 financial statements, has co-ordinated 850 events around the world by linking local organisations, which in Australia included Get Up!, Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network.

 

The protests have been timed to build climate change action ahead of the Global Climate Action Summit, 350.org said in a statement, where political, business and entertainment leaders including the Hungary President Janos Ader, Ikea Group chief executive Jesper Brodin and actor Harrison Ford are scheduled to speak.

 

The summit, whose sponsors include Google, Facebook, the United Nations and Bloomberg Philanthropies, is planned for September 12 to 14 in California, less than 60 days before the U.S. mid-term elections where climate is expected to be an issue.

 

U.S. based lobby watchdog InfluenceWatch.org says on its website that 350.org's closely related entity 350.org Action Fund almost exclusively supports Democratic politicians in U.S. elections.

 

Chief executive of 350.org Australia Blair Palese said her organisation does not engage in party-political lobbying.

 

"We really just call for action on climate across all parties and all countries ... just calling for the public to ask all candidates what their positions are on climate and what kind of action they're taking," she told Reuters by telephone on Saturday.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-08

[phantomfiddler]

What a load of cobblers ! Natural (and unstoppable) phenomena completely belittle man,s paltry attempts to change the climate. Sue the volcanoes in Hawaii ?

[RickBradford]

Ah, the Southern Swan - isn't she a beautiful vessel?

 

A little less beautiful below decks, especially in the room which contains a 350hp Caterpillar diesel engine...

 

But let's not be curmudgeonly; it still makes a stunningly beautiful diesel-powered environmental protest.

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

What a load of cobblers ! Natural (and unstoppable) phenomena completely belittle man,s paltry attempts to change the climate. Sue the volcanoes in Hawaii ?

Can you cite the scientific journal that observation came from?

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Can you cite the scientific journal that observation came from?

Astonishing that these people walk amongst us! Frighteningly ignorant!

[tropo]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Can you cite the scientific journal that observation came from?

How about you show us climate data covering the last 10,000 years that validate your theory. 

[ivor bigun]

Climate tax it should be called

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bristolboy]

On 9/8/2018 at 8:41 PM, tropo said:

How about you show us climate data covering the last 10,000 years that validate your theory. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

[bristolboy]

On 9/8/2018 at 8:41 PM, tropo said:

How about you show us climate data covering the last 10,000 years that validate your theory. 

 

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

I should have posted the following graph:

[jimmyyy]

your going to need at least 10,000 years of data before any of this data could be considered relevant to climate change

[bristolboy]

32 minutes ago, jimmyyy said:

your going to need at least 10,000 years of data before any of this data could be considered relevant to climate change

How about 11,000 years? Or is that too much?

 

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

[tropo]

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

I should have posted the following graph:

Thanks! The first graph was better "proof" that what's happening in recent decades is unprecedented over 11,300 years of temperature history.

 

Their "thermometer" was very interesting:

 

"Existing research has shown that certain chemical tracers in the shells link directly to temperature at the time they were created; by studying oxygen isotopes in the fossilized plankton shown below, for example, scientists can deduce that it formed its shell at a time when Greenland was fully without ice. Marcott's task was to compile enough such samples to represent the whole planet over his chosen timeframe."

 

"There's been a lot of work that's gone into the calibrations, so we can be dead certain [the shells] are recording the temperature we think they're recording,"

 

And tree rings:

 

"Previous historic climate reconstructions typically extended no further back than 2,000 years, roughly as far back as you can go by examining climate indicators from tree rings"

 

It all comes down to how good these methods turn out to be.

[gunderhill]

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

I prefer a  longer term perspective .

The  biggest trees and animals all lived when it was  way way  hotter  than now, bring it on I say, this only  covers the last  600 million years  there's another 4  billion  previously.

Edited September 10, 2018 by gunderhill

[from the home of CC]

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today

 

 

yea for about 2000 years people were using bad gasoline.  

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

Thanks! The first graph was better "proof" that what's happening in recent decades is unprecedented over 11,300 years of temperature history.

 

Their "thermometer" was very interesting:

 

"Existing research has shown that certain chemical tracers in the shells link directly to temperature at the time they were created; by studying oxygen isotopes in the fossilized plankton shown below, for example, scientists can deduce that it formed its shell at a time when Greenland was fully without ice. Marcott's task was to compile enough such samples to represent the whole planet over his chosen timeframe."

 

"There's been a lot of work that's gone into the calibrations, so we can be dead certain [the shells] are recording the temperature we think they're recording,"

 

And tree rings:

 

"Previous historic climate reconstructions typically extended no further back than 2,000 years, roughly as far back as you can go by examining climate indicators from tree rings"

 

It all comes down to how good these methods turn out to be.

Well, if for 2000 years 2 different methods are statistically in agreement, then I think that's pretty good evidence in support of the method that goes back another 9000.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, gunderhill said:

I prefer a  longer term perspective .

The  biggest trees and animals all lived when it was  way way  hotter  than now, bring it on I say, this only  covers the last  600 million years  there's another 4  billion  previously.

And who has denied that the earth was once a lot warmer. And what relevance does that have to the current situation?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today

 

 

yea for about 2000 years people were using bad gasoline.  

The point you seem to be missing is about 'rate." Never in all those 11,000 years has there been a spike like the one that we are currently in the midst of.

[tropo]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The point you seem to be missing is about 'rate." Never in all those 11,000 years has there been a spike like the one that we are currently in the midst of.

You can't make that conclusion based on period of 11,300 years. In the last century we have daily and even hourly records of temperatures around the world on thermometers. The other 11,200 plus years have been deduced by the collection of shells in oceans. How on earth could you say what year, decade, century or even millennia various shells come from? That's another challenge not even hinted upon in your article. There could be many spikes hidden within that 11,300 years that are disguised in the noise of flimsy evidence. It would be quite easy to make data fit the theory too. Baffle with science, so to speak.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, tropo said:

You can't make that conclusion based on period of 11,300 years. In the last century we have daily and even hourly records of temperatures around the world on thermometers. The other 11,200 plus years have been deduced by the collection of shells in oceans. How on earth could you say what year, decade, century or even millennia various shells come from? That's another challenge not even hinted upon in your article. There could be many spikes hidden within that 11,300 years that are disguised in the noise of flimsy evidence. It would be quite easy to make data fit the theory too. Baffle with science, so to speak.

So you think that this scientist just made up what age these shells were? That there isn't scientific work on stratification to justify his use of the samples? That statistically the samples weren't large enough in quantity to justify his conclusions?  And you think that the points you raised wouldn't have been addressed in the preliminaries of the study?  The scientist in question just hoped that no one would notice that he hadn't addressed the concerns you raised?

[gunderhill]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And who has denied that the earth was once a lot warmer. And what relevance does that have to the current situation?

Its been much  hotter and the greatest animals/trees that ever  lived lived  then, that's the relevance.

[bristolboy]

Just now, gunderhill said:

Its been much  hotter and the greatest animals/trees that ever  lived lived  then, that's the relevance.

But that doesn't address the question of whether the increased emissions of CO2 and other gases are responsible for the present warming.

[gunderhill]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But that doesn't address the question of whether the increased emissions of CO2 and other gases are responsible for the present warming.

I wasn't  addressing that question, just pointing out even if it gets  much hotter maybe we'll see some great animals/trees  emerging, too  much "end of the world" scare tactics in global warming for my liking.

Just remember scientists spent 300 years  looking for gravitational aether and then Luminiferous aether, neither existed, even great minds like  Newton/Maxwell.

Edited September 10, 2018 by gunderhill

[bristolboy]

Just now, gunderhill said:

I wasn't  addressing that question, just pointing out even if it gets  much hotter maybe we'll see some great animals/trees  emerging, too  much "end of the world" scare tactics in global warming for my liking

"We" wont be seeing any such thing. Nor will or children nor our children's children or their children. The time scale required for such a change to take place would be in the hundreds of thousands of years. And for that to happen, there would have to be massive extinctions as well. And those extinctions would come first. Andthose mass extinctions would take place on a time scale that even we could witness part of.

[gunderhill]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

"We" wont be seeing any such thing. Nor will or children nor our children's children or their children. The time scale required for such a change to take place would be in the hundreds of thousands of years. And for that to happen, there would have to be massive extinctions as well. And those extinctions would come first. Andthose mass extinctions would take place on a time scale that even we could witness part of.

I do realise it doesn't happen overnight, but sounds  good  to me, I like mass extinctions opens  up a whole new chapter, probably wouldn't even be here without one.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, gunderhill said:

I do realise it doesn't happen overnight, but sounds  good  to me, I like mass extinctions opens  up a whole new chapter, probably wouldn't even be here without one.

Maybe you'll get really lucky and another asteroid will collide with earth.

[gunderhill]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Maybe you'll get really lucky and another asteroid will collide with earth.

Live in hope, certainly do the world a  favour, especially if it landed in Thailand ?

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, gunderhill said:

Live in hope, certainly do the world a  favour, especially if it landed in Thailand ?

The last big one landed near Mexico. That didn't spare asia from the consequences.

[CharlieH]

Reported derogatory post removed.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So you think that this scientist just made up what age these shells were? That there isn't scientific work on stratification to justify his use of the samples? That statistically the samples weren't large enough in quantity to justify his conclusions?  And you think that the points you raised wouldn't have been addressed in the preliminaries of the study?  The scientist in question just hoped that no one would notice that he hadn't addressed the concerns you raised?

In order of your questions raised:

 

1. He didn't make it up, but the assessment is highly inaccurate and flawed.

2. No, there isn't scientific work on stratification to justify his timescales.

3. No.

4. Might have been raised. Were they?

5. Yes. Most people probably wouldn't notice. You soaked it all up on faith.

 

Really, I don't think you understand my comments about timescale. Let's say the spike at the end represents 2 decades (it's probably less), and we're making a chart to cover 11,300 years. That spike would represent 1/565th of the chart (or 0.00177). That chart is way out of scale. There could be many spikes within it that will never be found. Their "sea-shell method" over 11,300 years is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

It's obvious you have a lot of faith in these guys. I don't. You're welcome to address your specific questions with evidence to prove your points. Considering you're proposing this as a valid theory, the onus is upon you to prove your points. That's not my job.

 

 

[from the home of CC]

Their "sea-shell method" over 11,300 years is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Agree. Kind of like a grain of sand on the beach of time.