Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

I’m obviously being facetious. 

Thanks for that, even if i could not get it, humour is a must nowadays

[johnnybangkok]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks for that, even if i could not get it, humour is a must nowadays

They should have a sarcasm font

[mogandave]

You are now calling me a liar and a fool.  Nice.  
 
No idea what you are talking about, and since you have not told me, despite me asking you 3 times what I wrote that upset you so much, I can only conclude you are making stuff up to cause a problem.  I am not going to apologise to you for something I have no idea what I did to upset you.
 
 

Your comprehension skills could well be at fault. I did not call you a liar and a fool, I called you a liar or a fool.

[simoh1490]

Arf arf!

[mogandave]

What's the problem, Mogandave? I don't see that Jak is lying, although there is always the potential for misinterpretation when people simplify the term,' Anthropogenic-induced climate change' and just write 'climate change', as in 'climate change denier'.
 
The term 'climate change denier' is sloppy and misleading. No-one who has any understanding of climate would deny the fact that climate is always changing, regardless of any influences from mankind's activities.
The current warming seems quite natural in relation to previous warm and cool periods, such as the Roman Warm Period, followed by the cooler Dark Ages, followed by the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age.
That mankind's activities have contributed to the current warming, to some slight degree, is a reasonable deduction.
 
I think Jak is replying to your post #431 within the context of your previous posts, such as post #429 where you wrote, "I’m 60 and I never met anyone that (as far as I know) has denied evolution in its entirety. Neither have I met anyone that denies the climate is changing. I can only imagine where one would meet such people."

Going from what I said (above) to what Jak claims I said (way further above) is intellectually lazy at best.

[jak2002003]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Your comprehension skills could well be at fault. I did not call you a liar and a fool, I called you a liar or a fool.

 

I have given you the benefit of the doubt.  But now I can clearly see you are just trying to get an argument.  Sad. 

[mogandave]

I have given you the benefit of the doubt.  But now I can clearly see you are just trying to get an argument.  Sad. 

I. E. I know you’re right but I’ll just attack you and shut the discussion down.

Sad

[Catoni]

(Always) Ten Years Left To Save The Planet

  Every ten years, climate scientists say we have ten years left to save the planet. Sometimes they want to save it from global warming, other times they say they want to save it from global cooling.  Very Revealng and true video.. 

 

 

[balo]

15 hours ago, mogandave said:

I. E. I know you’re right but I’ll just attack you and shut the discussion down.

Sad

Why is your text so small when you quote someone ?  Another Thaivisa special ? 

 

 

[mogandave]

13 hours ago, balo said:

Why is your text so small when you quote someone ?  Another Thaivisa special ? 

 

 

Matches my mind?

 

I just noticed. I usually post using my phone. It looks full size on the phone, but I just noticed using the laptop it looks small size...

[balo]

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

but I just noticed using the laptop it looks small size...

Yes crazy stuff this , and they think they have upgraded and made everything better. WIth my laptop I now have to zoom in to read all the posts sent from phones. This is 2018 , go back to 2004 and Thaivisa worked better. 

  

[faraday]

Yup, the font is rubbish, & if tvf management think otherwise, then, " I'm unable to express my thoughts".

 

I'm Sure you know what I mean ..

 

????

 

[Bangkok Herps]

On 9/18/2018 at 5:12 PM, Catoni said:

 

    Well... in general...  people do best in wamer times.  Civilization began, and also made their greatest advances during warmer times....  not so much during the intevening colder periods.   (Holocene Climate Optimum and the end of hunter/gatherer....beginning of agriculture and first villages/cities).  The Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period...

     Not so good during the cooler times....  

 

    We just came out of a 550 year cooler time... the Little Ice Age..(circa 1300 - 1850) with longer, colder more bitter winters, shorter growing seasons, failed harvests, famine and lots of early death from easier disease spread due to people spending lots more time close together indoors...

   The I.P.C.C. says we warmed only 0.85 degree C between 1880 - 2012. (Third, fourth and fifth Assessment Reports.)

                    You think 0.85 degree C over a period of time of 132 years is fast compared to the past ?  You haven't heard of Abrupt Climate Change?  (Like 10 degrees in 10 years or even less.  That is fast.) 

    Tell me.... what do you expect it to do after a nasty colder time ends.  Do you expect it to warm up for a couple of hundred years?   

    Or get colder.. . LOL   ? 

   By the way..  CO2 is not pollution.  And compared to almost all of the last 500 - 600 million years....  CO2 level is extremely low right now.   

   We actually reached a level of 180ppm before.......

  What do you think would have happened if we went below 150 ppm atmospheric CO2 ? ? ? 

 

  You're a "scientist" ? ?   

 

Here's some more scientists : 

 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.^{[19][20][21][22]}
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.^[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.^[25][26]
• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. ^[27][28][29]
• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.^{[30][31][32][33]}
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.^[34][35]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).^[36]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.^[37][38]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.^{[35][39][40][41]}
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.^{[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]}
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.^[49][50]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.^[51][52][53]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[54][55]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.^[56][57]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.^[58][59]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.^{[60][61][62][63]}
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.^[64][65]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.^[66][67]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.^[68][69]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.^[70][71]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.^[72][73]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.^[74][75]
•  

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.^[77][78]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[79][80][81]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.^[82][83][84]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[85][86]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.^[87]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.^[88]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.^[89][90]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.^[91][92]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.^[35][93]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.^[94][95]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[96][97]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.^[98][99]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.^[100][101]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.^[102][103]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.^[104][105]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[106][107]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[108][109]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[110][111]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.^[112][113]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.^[114][115]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.^{[116][117][118]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.^[119][120]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.^[121][122]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.^{[123][124][125][126]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[127][128]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.^[129][130]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.^[131][132]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.^[133][134]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.^[135][136]

 

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[137][138]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[139][140]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[141][142]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.^[143][144]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCCreports.^{[145][146][147]}
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[148][149]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[150][151]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.^[152][153]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.^[154][155]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[156][157]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.^{[158][159][160]}
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[161][162]

 

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.^{[163][164][165]}
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[166][167]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.^[168][169]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.^[170][171]

       . 

     

 

When out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, you're stuck having to throw in zoologist, geographers, and electrical engineers just to pad out your list to a few dozen, you expose the deficiency of your own position. The large majority of people you list have literally never worked in climate science, some of them aren't even scientists...and you still only managed to get 50 or so names out of literally hundreds of thousands.

I could make a longer list of scientists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that world governments are covering up the existence of aliens.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Bangkok Herps

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, Bangkok Herps said:

 

When out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, you're stuck having to throw in zoologist, geographers, and electrical engineers just to pad out your list to a few dozen, you expose the deficiency of your own position. The large majority of people you list have literally never worked in climate science, some of them aren't even scientists...and you still only managed to get 50 or so names out of literally hundreds of thousands.

I could make a longer list of scientists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that world governments are covering up the existence of aliens.

Oops, there goes the goal posts again. Hard to catch up to those darn things.

 

The 9/11 thing is a non starter. Everyone knows there are thousands of engineers and architects that say the WT towers were felled by controlled demolition.

But I would like to see you compile that alien list you mentioned.

Edited October 19, 2018 by canuckamuck

[zzaa09]

All the obsessed and theoretical discussion, perhaps the bottom line might be what nature decides. 

 

We do consider ourselves terribly special and the centre of all things, don't we?

What if we're not. 

 

 

Uh-oh....

 

????

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Bangkok Herps said:

 

When out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, you're stuck having to throw in zoologist, geographers, and electrical engineers just to pad out your list to a few dozen, you expose the deficiency of your own position. The large majority of people you list have literally never worked in climate science, some of them aren't even scientists...and you still only managed to get 50 or so names out of literally hundreds of thousands.

I could make a longer list of scientists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that world governments are covering up the existence of aliens.

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

 

I think if a world-wide survey were done, most scientists would agree with the above quote. In other words, millions of them would understand the uncertainty of predictions or projections of such a complex and chaotic system as the earth's climate.
However, many scientists working in Climate Research Centers would probably be reluctant to openly admit, publicly, their opinion that the projections are very uncertain, because they understand that their careers are dependent upon the alarm about climate change being maintained.

 

This is not a conspiracy but the normal psychology of workplace relations. If one disagrees with the fundamental premises of whatever organization one is working with, or employed by, then one has no future career in such an organization. 
Unless one keeps quiet about the personal doubts that one has, that rising CO2 levels are the main driver of the current slight warming, and that such slight warming will be bad for our future well-being, for example, then one will be criticised by one's colleagues. One will be unlikely to get promotion or have one's research papers peer reviewed, so one might as well leave, and express one's opinion outside of the system. Whistle blowers are not treated well.

 

However, I imagine that some of those skeptical scientists might justify to themselves that maintaining an alarm about the negative effects of CO2 will have positive effects in the long run, in terms of more efficient 'alternative' energy supplies, which probably wouldn't have been developed without that alarm about the effects of rising CO2 levels being maintained.

 

If in 30, or 50, or 100 years' time, a global cooling trend becomes undeniable, despite higher CO2 levels than present (or even the same levels as present), and climate scientists begin to admit that they got it wrong about the role of minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, then at least we will be able to go back to burning fossil fuels with new, high-technology, low-emission power plants whilst also getting the benefits of efficient solar-generated electricity and electric cars.

 

Energy supplies are the fundamental resource which is necessary for all human activity and our general prosperity. The more the better, provided it's reasonably clean.

 

With that increased supply of energy, combining both fossil fuels and efficient alternative energy supplies, we should then be able to tackle the real solution to our concerns about climate change, which are actually concerns about extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and sea level rises combined with land sinking in certain areas such as Bangkok.

 

Tackling the real problem requires huge amounts of energy. It requires the construction of lots of flood-mitigation dams, enforcing building regulations that require all houses to withstand the force of previous hurricanes that have landed in the area, and requiring that all houses to be built above the level of previous floods in the area.

 

This is currently too expensive, so blaming the destruction caused by extreme weather events on CO2 levels, gives the politicians and administrators a way out. Instead of being accused of incompetence because they have not built the necessary flood mitigation dams to eliminate or at least reduce the damage from a flood which is a fairly regular occurrence and usually not as bad as previous floods in the area that occurred when CO2 levels were lower, they can falsely claim that the flood is connected with CO2 levels and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only solution.
 

[mogandave]

I don’t really understand why people care about what happens when they’re dead.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

I don’t really understand why people care about what happens when they’re dead.

It's called empathy. If one cares about other people whilst one is living, and one feels sad for the people in the past who were subjected to awful atrocities, such as being burned alive at the stake for their beliefs, why should one not feel sad for the predicaments of future generations.

 

It should be very obvious to most thinking people, who are willing to investigate the issue of climate change for themselves, instead of just accepting the news reports on the subject, that there is rarely anything unusual about extreme weather events. 
Most of them, in most regions, are the 2nd worst, or 3rd worst, or 5th worst, and so on, since accurate records have been kept. All one needs to do is check the historical records of the Meteorological Bureaus in one's own country or location to find such information. 

 

The recent Hurricane Michael which landed in Florida, for example, was the third worst on record, according to the American National Hurricane Center. If one goes further back in time, the proxy records and verbal reports indicate that such events are a fairly regular occurrence, but it's difficult to be precise about  certain matters such as wind speed. If Hurricane Michael was the third worst since 1935, it might well be the 5th worst since 1835, and the 7th or 10th worst since 1735. We simply can't be certain.

 

What people often confuse when describing an extreme weather event as the worst on record, is the extent of the damage to property and infrastructure, with the severity of the storm or the height of the flood. They are separate issues.
It is often the case that a storm or a flood which is quite within the historical norm for the region, will produce a record amount of damage and loss of life due to the increase in population in the area and the construction of inadequate housing in the interests of economic development. That's the real tragedy. The ignoring of the historical record of extreme weather events when planning development in an area, then blaming the future damage, which is to be expected, on rising CO2 levels.
 

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

why should one not feel sad for the predicaments of future generations.

Because the future is inherently unforeseeable, so the predicaments are only in your mind.

In 1900s London, their biggest worry was where to put all the horse poop.

In the 1970s, they were planning where to park all the personal flying cars.

 

We'll probably be hit by an asteroid (Peak Oil/Solar Flare/zombie plague), and nobody will be alive to care.

[mogandave]

It's called empathy. If one cares about other people whilst one is living, and one feels sad for the people in the past who were subjected to awful atrocities, such as being burned alive at the stake for their beliefs, why should one not feel sad for the predicaments of future generations.
 
It should be very obvious to most thinking people, who are willing to investigate the issue of climate change for themselves, instead of just accepting the news reports on the subject, that there is rarely anything unusual about extreme weather events. 
Most of them, in most regions, are the 2nd worst, or 3rd worst, or 5th worst, and so on, since accurate records have been kept. All one needs to do is check the historical records of the Meteorological Bureaus in one's own country or location to find such information. 
 
The recent Hurricane Michael which landed in Florida, for example, was the third worst on record, according to the American National Hurricane Center. If one goes further back in time, the proxy records and verbal reports indicate that such events are a fairly regular occurrence, but it's difficult to be precise about  certain matters such as wind speed. If Hurricane Michael was the third worst since 1935, it might well be the 5th worst since 1835, and the 7th or 10th worst since 1735. We simply can't be certain.
 
What people often confuse when describing an extreme weather event as the worst on record, is the extent of the damage to property and infrastructure, with the severity of the storm or the height of the flood. They are separate issues.
It is often the case that a storm or a flood which is quite within the historical norm for the region, will produce a record amount of damage and loss of life due to the increase in population in the area and the construction of inadequate housing in the interests of economic development. That's the real tragedy. The ignoring of the historical record of extreme weather events when planning development in an area, then blaming the future damage, which is to be expected, on rising CO2 levels.
 

How does one go about investigating the issue of climate change themselves? If reading records, is that not dependent on what others are recording/saying?

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Because the future is inherently unforeseeable, so the predicaments are only in your mind.I

Everything is perceived, or experienced, or thought about, only in the mind, including all scientific theories. That is a separate issue from the practical concerns of foreseeable consequences resulting from certain actions or conditions.

 

For example, if a person were to jump off the balcony of the tenth storey of a building (without a parachute or similar device), on to a road and concrete pavements below, it's very foreseeable that he will die.
However, it's not 100% certain that he will die. If there was a tornado in the region which was active at the time, a strong gust of wind could significantly reduce the speed of his fall, and he might sustain non-fatal injuries. Also, if an open garbage truck were passing by, containing discarded mattresses and pillows, there's a chance that the falling guy might land in the truck and save his life.

 

There are always varying degree of certainty with regard to the foreseeable future, depending on the circumstances, the number and complexity of the influences, and our understanding of those influences.
 

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

 

How does one go about investigating the issue of climate change themselves? If reading records, is that not dependent on what others are recording/saying?
 

 

 

Of course. Everyone is in the position of having to interpret everything they read or observe, including all scientists, and such interpretations depend on the person's nous, intelligence, background experiences, education, and so on.

 

Those who have an understanding of the 'methodology of science' should be able to understand that the chaotic characteristics of climate change, the numerous influences involved, and the long time periods involved before a consistent trend can be observed, make the application of the scientific methodology in its most rigorous form, too difficult to apply in order to reach any high degree of certainty about the influences of those minuscule levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Most people, including most politicians, don't seem to have a clue about the rigorous requirements of the true methodology of science. They are gullible fodder for scientists with a political agenda, such as Michael Mann.

[BritManToo]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

For example, if a person were to jump off the balcony of the tenth storey of a building (without a parachute or similar device), on to a road and concrete pavements below, it's very foreseeable that he will die.

False argument,

It's much easier to predict your personal future 10 seconds later, than mans future 1000 years later.

(In 10 seconds I will have an 89% chance of still sitting on the sofa, with a 10% chance of getting up for a cup of tea)

Edited October 20, 2018 by BritManToo

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

False argument,

It's much easier to predict your personal future 10 seconds later, than mans future 1000 years later.

(In 10 seconds I will have an 89% chance of still sitting on the sofa, with a 10% chance of getting up for a cup of tea)

By quoting my statement out of context you have misrepresented my argument. My argument is that whilst absolutely nothing is 100% certain about predictions of the future, there are varying degrees of probability that some future event will occur, depending on the complexity of the situation and of course the time period involved, and that we should take such probabilities into consideration when organizing our affairs.

 

My example that someone who throws himself off a high building will most probably die, represents a very high degree of probability. There's an even higher degree of probability that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning, as it has done for the past 4 billion years or so, and also an extremely high degree of probability that the sun will continue to rise as usual in 100 years time.

 

When we have observed patterns of events occurring regularly in the past, it's quite rational to assume that at least similar patterns will continue to occur into the future. For example, it would be very silly if someone in the UK, during a cold and snowy winter, were to start worrying that the snowy conditions might continue for the following 9 months because we cannot foresee the future. The occurrence of summer is a regular pattern.

 

Likewise, it would be very foolish for someone in Florida to make a decision to build a standard home near the beach on the basis that the risk of a future hurricane might be very low because we cannot foresee the future.
However, if such a person is wealthy enough to afford the very high insurance costs that will completely cover the damage from a hurricane, or is so wealthy that the complete loss of a house is of little concern, then that's a different matter.
 

[BritManToo]

24 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

By quoting my statement out of context you have misre ...........

TL:Dr

[Catoni]

On 10/19/2018 at 8:14 PM, VincentRJ said:

It's called empathy. If one cares about other people whilst one is living, and one feels sad for the people in the past who were subjected to awful atrocities, such as being burned alive at the stake for their beliefs, why should one not feel sad for the predicaments of future generations.

 

It should be very obvious to most thinking people, who are willing to investigate the issue of climate change for themselves, instead of just accepting the news reports on the subject, that there is rarely anything unusual about extreme weather events. 
Most of them, in most regions, are the 2nd worst, or 3rd worst, or 5th worst, and so on, since accurate records have been kept. All one needs to do is check the historical records of the Meteorological Bureaus in one's own country or location to find such information. 

 

The recent Hurricane Michael which landed in Florida, for example, was the third worst on record, according to the American National Hurricane Center. If one goes further back in time, the proxy records and verbal reports indicate that such events are a fairly regular occurrence, but it's difficult to be precise about  certain matters such as wind speed. If Hurricane Michael was the third worst since 1935, it might well be the 5th worst since 1835, and the 7th or 10th worst since 1735. We simply can't be certain.

 

What people often confuse when describing an extreme weather event as the worst on record, is the extent of the damage to property and infrastructure, with the severity of the storm or the height of the flood. They are separate issues.
It is often the case that a storm or a flood which is quite within the historical norm for the region, will produce a record amount of damage and loss of life due to the increase in population in the area and the construction of inadequate housing in the interests of economic development. That's the real tragedy. The ignoring of the historical record of extreme weather events when planning development in an area, then blaming the future damage, which is to be expected, on rising CO2 levels.
 

What do they mean by “ ...second, or third worse ...” etc.?

   How do they define “...worse...”? 

And how far back do accurate measurements go?

[utalkin2me]

There are those that say nothing is going on, it is all normal.

 

There are those that say it is human induced, and we need to stop it. 

 

Screw all that. Let's just be practical. We are not going to do anytning about it, not anything of significance anyway. We all know it. 

 

So what do we do when we admit that to ourselves, because we all know it is true. Just sit back and bend over and wait for the changes to come, and deal with them as beat we can. It may be tomorrow or in a generation. Whatever. Just get ready to bend over because it will jam the proverbial rod up everyone's bung. 

[Catoni]

12 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

There are those that say nothing is going on, it is all normal.

 

There are those that say it is human induced, and we need to stop it. 

 

Screw all that. Let's just be practical. We are not going to do anytning about it, not anything of significance anyway. We all know it. 

 

So what do we do when we admit that to ourselves, because we all know it is true. Just sit back and bend over and wait for the changes to come, and deal with them as beat we can. It may be tomorrow or in a generation. Whatever. Just get ready to bend over because it will jam the proverbial rod up everyone's bung. 

>”There are those who say that nothing is going on, it is all normal.”

 

     There are also those who say something IS going on, and it is all normal. 

     That Climate Change is normal for the planet and has always been happening.

   Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. 

 

   But some people see a great opportunity to scream “ALARM !!!!.....ALARM !!!!!”  And use climate change for politico-economic gain.

    Politicians, especially those on the extreme right and the extreme left have always loved offering up scary scenarios so the unknowing brainwashed public start hollering and begging for something to be done to be “saved”.  It offers the chance to build more bureaucracy/power, and offers researchers the opportunity to get more funds for their labs, hire more staff, pad their bank accounts, to fly first class to more limousine luxurious champagne and caviar five star “conferences” to exotic locations in the world. ( The climate C.O.P. Conferences each year.)

   Hey !!    They know when they’ve got a good thing going. And they’re going to soak it for all it’s worth. 

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Catoni said:

What do they mean by “ ...second, or third worse ...” etc.?

   How do they define “...worse...”? 

And how far back do accurate measurements go?

The media is often imprecise and confusing on this. The various Bureaus of Meteorology will rate hurricanes in terms of wind speed at landfall, and floods in terms of flood heights in a specific area.

 

The city of Brisbane in Australia experiences a major flood every few decades. That means that quite often there is no major flood in a 30 or 40 year period, which is long enough for most people to forget there is a risk, and allows newcomers in particular to be completely unaware there is a risk.

 

When the next flood arrives, it's considered to be an unusual event and is immediately associated with climate change and often described as the worst flood ever, or the worst in a century. 

 

In terms of damage to property, that might be the case because of extensive urbanization, but in terms of flood height it's never been the case, in Brisbane at least, during the past 125 years. The worst flood in terms of height, in the city centre, occurred in 1893. It was even documented photographically. Refer attached image.

 

[Bangkok Herps]

On 10/19/2018 at 7:59 AM, VincentRJ said:

 

 

 

I think if a world-wide survey were done, most scientists would agree with the above quote. In other words, millions of them would understand the uncertainty of predictions or projections of such a complex and chaotic system as the earth's climate.

However, many scientists working in Climate Research Centers would probably be reluctant to openly admit, publicly, their opinion that the projections are very uncertain, because they understand that their careers are dependent upon the alarm about climate change being maintained.

 

This is not a conspiracy but the normal psychology of workplace relations. If one disagrees with the fundamental premises of whatever organization one is working with, or employed by, then one has no future career in such an organization. 
Unless one keeps quiet about the personal doubts that one has, that rising CO2 levels are the main driver of the current slight warming, and that such slight warming will be bad for our future well-being, for example, then one will be criticised by one's colleagues. One will be unlikely to get promotion or have one's research papers peer reviewed, so one might as well leave, and express one's opinion outside of the system. Whistle blowers are not treated well.

 

However, I imagine that some of those skeptical scientists might justify to themselves that maintaining an alarm about the negative effects of CO2 will have positive effects in the long run, in terms of more efficient 'alternative' energy supplies, which probably wouldn't have been developed without that alarm about the effects of rising CO2 levels being maintained.

There are two reasons why I strongly dispute your hypothetical interpretation of events.

First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. An extremely minuscule percentage of them have the slightest doubt that man's activity is a major driver of climate change or that said climate change will have devastating global effects in the next century, especially for the environment and for poor people across the warmer regions of the globe.

Secondly, among those relationships include personal friends of mine who work for fossil fuel producers, and they report that even the scientists who work with the fossil fuel companies believe the party line on AGW is basically accurate. So workplace incentives cannot be driving the acceptance of the theories when even those who have the most to lose have admitted there is an issue here.