Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[RickBradford]

16 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Fossil fuel Industries pay lobbyists tons of money to propagandize and mislead the gullible, the success of that brainwashing is that this thread exists.

The Left-dominated legacy media, rent-seeking supranational bureaucracies and make-work government apparatchiks pay lobbyists tons of money to propagandize and mislead the gullible, the success of that brainwashing is that this thread exists.

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

(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.. 

   

  

Except that most of the predictions he mentioned actually happened and as for the millennium bug, the reason it wasn't serious was because thousands of scientists PREVENTED it - the gut is actually so dim he doesn't realise that most of what he says actually supports the concept of man-made global climate change.

He also totally fails to understand how scientific theory works - unlike deniers who never change their stance, science constantly reviews information and evidence to reassess the situation.

What. hopeless podcast and those who swallow that nonsense ae equally hopelessly gullible and blinkered.

Edited October 15, 2018 by kwilco

[Catoni]

17 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Can anyone conclusively prove or disprove man's involvement in climate change. Yes there may be a 1000 year climatic shift underway. But Our polluting the air with Industrial gases are certainly having an affect especially in the Northern Hemisphere. I am sceptical whether anything will stop it now. But doing nothing is the same as waiting for a forest fire to burn your house down

     Sure.... lets spend trillions and trillions of dollars over the next 80 years to keep the world temp 1 or 2 degrees lower over the next 80 years or so..

       Meanwhile... where I lived in Canada... we can go from 93 degrees F in the summer to 20 below zero F n the winter... 

  A change of more than 100 degrees F in just six months... 

 

   I challenge you to step outside and tell me you can tell the difference in one degree change from one day to the next... 

 

   For the money the U.N. and the planet would spend to stop a degree or two or three warming over the next 80 - 100 years.... we could make clean drinking water available to every village in the world.. .saving millions and millions of lives fom waterborne diseases...  men, women and children.... 

Every year 3,575,000 people die from water related diseases. This is equivalent to a jumbo jet crashing every hour. Most of these people are CHILDREN (2.2 million).  

  The World Health Organization   (W.H.O.)

[Catoni]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Except that most of the predictions he mentioned actually happened and as for the millennium bug, the reason it wasn't serious was because thousands of scientists PREVENTED it - the gut is actually so dim he doesn't realise that most of what he says actually supports the concept of man-made global climate change.

He also totally fails to understand how scientific theory works - unlike deniers who never change their stance, science constantly reviews information and evidence to reassess the situation.

What. hopeless podcast and those who swallow that nonsense ae equally hopelessly gullible and blinkered.

  > Except that most of the predictions he mentioned actually happened....

 

     Sure they did... whatever you say.... except you make that claim and give us no examples...   not very scientific of you....

               Would you mind naming just three of of the failed predictions in that video that actually came true as predicted   ? ?    Bring your cites and references please... like Tony did in his video.. 

    We will wait right here...       Thanks comrade. 

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

He also totally fails to understand how scientific theory works - unlike deniers who never change their stance, science constantly reviews information and evidence to reassess the situation.

Oh, that's priceless,

 

For the last 20 years it has been the climate zealots who have been repeating the phrase "The debate is over, the science is settled" like a parrot expecting a nut, and it has been the climate skeptics who have been arguing for a re-evaluation of some of the shoddy science that has been performed (the names of Michael "Piltdown" Mann and Keith "One-Tree" Briffa spring to mind).

 

Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate, but the Climate Crew won't have any of that, desperate to protect the fantasy that they are 100% correct in everything they say.

 

As author Czeslaw Milosz pointed out: "When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal."

[JimmyJ]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, that's priceless,

 

For the last 20 years it has been the climate zealots who have been repeating the phrase "The debate is over, the science is settled" like a parrot expecting a nut, and it has been the climate skeptics who have been arguing for a re-evaluation of some of the shoddy science that has been performed (the names of Michael "Piltdown" Mann and Keith "One-Tree" Briffa spring to mind).

 

Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate, but the Climate Crew won't have any of that, desperate to protect the fantasy that they are 100% correct in everything they say.

 

As author Czeslaw Milosz pointed out: "When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal."

You lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly.

 

"Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate..."

 

" ...it has been the climate skeptics who have been arguing for a re-evaluation of some of the shoddy science that has been performed"

 

Should gravity  be discussed in open debate by the gravity skeptics?

Evolution?

Electromagnetism?

Cigarettes cause cancer?

The germ theory of disease?

 

 

 

Stephen Jay Gould once commented that the Creationism debates were a shame.

The science was settled long ago, and discussing Creationism [Biblical mythology  wrapped in paper that said "Science" on it] was wasting so much time that could be spent discussing new discoveries (and making new discoveries).

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by JimmyJ

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Should gravity  be discussed in open debate by the gravity skeptics?

Why not? If ideas are idiotic, they will be shown up as such by open debate.

 

The only reason to suppress debate on anything is if you are scared that your ideas can't survive scrutiny and analysis. Which sums up the climate zealots' position neatly.

 

Michael "Piltdown" Mann even sued a commentator who called his 'hockey stick' a fraud, and lost the case when he didn't have the guts to show his working, because he knew that it would be ripped to shreds in public.

 

Big Green knows full well that its ideas cannot survive robust open debate, which is why it always resorts to attempts to suppress and control.

 

"The science is settled, the debate is over" is the clearest expression of that intent.

 

And if you knew anything about the scientific method you would understand that "If it's science, it isn't settled; if it's settled, it isn't science."

[Kiwiken]

5 hours ago, Catoni said:

     Sure.... lets spend trillions and trillions of dollars over the next 80 years to keep the world temp 1 or 2 degrees lower over the next 80 years or so..

       Meanwhile... where I lived in Canada... we can go from 93 degrees F in the summer to 20 below zero F n the winter... 

  A change of more than 100 degrees F in just six months... 

 

   I challenge you to step outside and tell me you can tell the difference in one degree change from one day to the next... 

 

   For the money the U.N. and the planet would spend to stop a degree or two or three warming over the next 80 - 100 years.... we could make clean drinking water available to every village in the world.. .saving millions and millions of lives fom waterborne diseases...  men, women and children.... 

Every year 3,575,000 people die from water related diseases. This is equivalent to a jumbo jet crashing every hour. Most of these people are CHILDREN (2.2 million).  

  The World Health Organization   (W.H.O.)

If we stopped making and using weapons for One Day the savings would do exactly the same . We can do without bullets but we cannot survive without land, water or air

[poanoi]

On 10/14/2018 at 6:11 PM, canuckamuck said:

I reject the term climate change denier/global warming denier. It is stupid term which needs to be retired. Everyone knows the climate changes. So no one is a denier. What we have are people who are skeptical and people whose minds are like soft clay which are easily impressed with anything coming from their acceptable channels. 

The real terms should be something like: Climate crisis skeptics and faithful globalist mind slaves.

agreed, and if anything, its the other way around,

the tin foil hat brigade thinks climate change is something unheard of until mankind started to fart en masse,

while the more sensible crowd look at records and see

climate has changed since before dawn of man

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

Michael "Piltdown" Mann even sued a commentator who called his 'hockey stick' a fraud, and lost the case when he didn't have the guts to show his working, because he knew that it would be ripped to shreds in public.

 

 

Where's your evidence that Mann lost the case or that it's even been decided?

As for Ball, the person Mann sued, it is true that that the judge dismissed the case brought by another climate scientist against Ball on the grounds of defamation. But the reasons for that were as follows:

. Citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Ball’s article, the judge said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.”

 

The decision references a previous case in which “the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons.”

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

 

As for that so called hockey stick scandal. It was based on an article published by the Times and ultimately the Times had to retract it because the article was judged to be false in its allegations about the "hockey stick."

 

.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_graph

 

 

[JimmyJ]

13 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate...

Scientific consensus is by definition evidence based.

 

A town hall meeting on evolution where the majority of the attendees are religious fundamentalists who deny evolution and believe in creationism is not a scientific consensus and in no way disproves evolution because science is a system of knowledge based on evidence.

 

Scientists say there is established science when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus based on evidence.

Man made global warming is accepted by 97% of scientists.

 

You feel that 97% of scientists in related fields are wrong when evaluating the evidence?

Present your evidence in an article, submit it to peer reviewed scientific journals, and let us know the results.

Please post the rejection emails here.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by JimmyJ

[Ahab]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 1:27 PM, connda said:

On the bright side, shipping though an ice free Northwest Passage will lower shipping costs.

The Northwest Passage has been ice free since this year, according to predictions made prior to this year.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Ahab

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Where's your evidence that Mann lost the case or that it's even been decided?

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

 

A court decision dismissing Mann's case against National Review. But thanks for reminding me about the Tim Ball case, where Mann is caught in a similar cleft stick. He also has a lawsuit running against Mark Steyn, but keeps forgetting to turn up for the court cases.

 

It's a Catch-22 -- to defend himself against accusations of fraud, Mann will have to reveal his data and programs. The moment he does that, his detractors will be proved right.

 

The Hockey Stick scandal is based on a great deal more than an article in The Times -- books have been written about it, and even scientists on the warmist side of the argument have backed away from it.

 

By all means defend climate science, but using Mann as your exemplar is poor strategy. His science, and notably the Hockey Stick, have been well and truly busted.

 

Edit: An entire volume of criticism of Mann's work by other scientists has been published, titled "A Disgrace to the Profession." Available at Amazon, sounds like an entertaining read.

Edited October 15, 2018 by RickBradford
Added info

[Scott]

This should get some people's attention:

Global warming to leave us crying in our costlier beer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Add beer to chocolate , coffee and wine as some of life's little pleasures that global warming will make scarcer and costlier, scientists say.

Increasing bouts of extreme heat waves and drought will hurt production of barley, a key beer ingredient, in the future. Losses of barley yield can be as much as 17 percent, an international group of researchers estimated.

That means beer prices on average would double, even adjusting for inflation, according to the study in Monday's journal Nature Plants

https://www.yahoo.com/news/global-warming-leave-us-crying-150336403.html

[Catoni]

12 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

If we stopped making and using weapons for One Day the savings would do exactly the same . We can do without bullets but we cannot survive without land, water or air

I think we would have to stop making and using weapons for a lot longer than just one day in order to bring clean drinking water to every town and village in the world.

      But don't hold your breath..... I doubt that countries are going to do that any time soon.

             And there will always be land, water and air. Unless we ship it off into space somehow, or it disappears into another dimension or alternate universe. 

    

  

[RickBradford]

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

Add beer to chocolate , coffee and wine as some of life's little pleasures that global warming will make scarcer and costlier, scientists say.

These scares have been 'known' for more than a decade.

 

They feature among the 600 or so disasters that global warming has been predicted to bring by commentators in the media, compiled by scientist John Brignell.

 

Quote

.... barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer shortage, beer worse,.... cockroach migration, cod go south, coffee threatened, coffee berry borer, coffee berry disease .... wine - Australian baked, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine passe (Napa), wine - Scotland best, wine stronger.

 

More fodder for those who live in what Carl Sagan called 'the demon-haunted world'.

[Catoni]

14 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

You lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly.

 

"Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate..."

 

" ...it has been the climate skeptics who have been arguing for a re-evaluation of some of the shoddy science that has been performed"

 

Should gravity  be discussed in open debate by the gravity skeptics?

Evolution?

Electromagnetism?

Cigarettes cause cancer?

The germ theory of disease?

 

 

 

Stephen Jay Gould once commented that the Creationism debates were a shame.

The science was settled long ago, and discussing Creationism [Biblical mythology  wrapped in paper that said "Science" on it] was wasting so much time that could be spent discussing new discoveries (and making new discoveries).

 

>"You lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly."

 

>""Climate policies should be formulated on the best footing, which always stems from open debate..."

 

      Here's Scientific Method for you....

 

SCIENTIFIC METHOD: 

1.  Observation and description of a phenomenon (a concept), 
  
2.  Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, 

3.  Test the hypothesis. If experiments do not confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2), 

4.  Establish a theory based on repeated verification of the results. 

 

GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMIST "SCIENTIFIC" METHOD: 

1.  Formulate Conclusion 

2.  Manipulate Data/Models to Fit Conclusion 

3.  Announce That "It's Worse Than We Thought", and "The Planet is Doomed and We Need More Study and Conferences and Government Has To do Something" (Lots of Cash and Socialist Politico/Economic Regulations ) 

4.  Smear All Critics   (Calling them "Deniers" is just a start. ) 

5.  Go Back To Step 1. and Keep Repeating List Until Everyone Believes You.  We Have To Keep The Gravy Train Running and Build Socialism. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Catoni
Adjust Font

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

 

A court decision dismissing Mann's case against National Review. But thanks for reminding me about the Tim Ball case, where Mann is caught in a similar cleft stick. He also has a lawsuit running against Mark Steyn, but keeps forgetting to turn up for the court cases.

 

It's a Catch-22 -- to defend himself against accusations of fraud, Mann will have to reveal his data and programs. The moment he does that, his detractors will be proved right.

 

The Hockey Stick scandal is based on a great deal more than an article in The Times -- books have been written about it, and even scientists on the warmist side of the argument have backed away from it.

 

By all means defend climate science, but using Mann as your exemplar is poor strategy. His science, and notably the Hockey Stick, have been well and truly busted.

 

Edit: An entire volume of criticism of Mann's work by other scientists has been published, titled "A Disgrace to the Profession." Available at Amazon, sounds like an entertaining read.

Clearly you are getting your information from denialist websites only. The case was reinstated and is pending adjudication. I believe that the full court overruled the 2 justices initial ruling. Had you googled Mann vs. National Review you could have found this for yourself. Clearly you're OD'ing on the Koolaid. What's sad is that you'll probably go on trusting websites like junkscience.com. 

"On the merits, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s refusal to dismiss the defamation suit seeking to hold defendants liable for chastising Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and saying his global warming study “molested” data, concluding that Mann provided enough evidence to support his claims."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d9447c0-6322-439d-bf83-6deed85feceb

 

Junkscience.com is run by Steven Millowy, a self-styled researcher who has made himself quite a tidy living shilling for the tobacco industry. And that's not all the dubious causes he backs.

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

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

h

 

The Hockey Stick scandal is based on a great deal more than an article in The Times -- books have been written about it, and even scientists on the warmist side of the argument have backed away from it.

 

By all means defend climate science, but using Mann as your exemplar is poor strategy. His science, and notably the Hockey Stick, have been well and truly busted.

 

Edit: An entire volume of criticism of Mann's work by other scientists has been published, titled "A Disgrace to the Profession." Available at Amazon, sounds like an entertaining read.

"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

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Junkscience.com is run by Steven Millowy, a self-styled researcher who has made himself quite a tidy living shilling for the tobacco industry. And that's not all the dubious causes he backs.

Are you saying that the court decision he posted is fake? If not, why bring up his website at all?

 

You can carry on trying to prop up Michael Mann as much as you like, but you are in a very sparse minority.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Are you saying that the court decision he posted is fake? If not, why bring up his website at all?

 

You can carry on trying to prop up Michael Mann as much as you like, but you are in a very sparse minority.

Nice try. I'm saying that your contention was false. Let me remind you again of what you wrote:

"Michael "Piltdown" Mann even sued a commentator who called his 'hockey stick' a fraud, and lost the case when he didn't have the guts to show his working, because he knew that it would be ripped to shreds in public."

Now that you know it was false, are you going to carry on maintaining such? Before you could very very very plausibly invoke ignorance on your part. That recourse is now closed to you.

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Are you saying that the court decision he posted is fake? If not, why bring up his website at all?

 

You can carry on trying to prop up Michael Mann as much as you like, but you are in a very sparse minority.

As for your attempted distraction about Milloy. No, it's not fake. But it is clearly designed to mislead since he does not cite the reversal by the full court and has managed to fool certain gullible parties into posting falsehoods about the case.

[Catoni]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Clearly you are getting your information from denialist websites only. The case was reinstated and is pending adjudication. I believe that the full court overruled the 2 justices initial ruling. Had you googled Mann vs. National Review you could have found this for yourself. Clearly you're OD'ing on the Koolaid. What's sad is that you'll probably go on trusting websites like junkscience.com. 

"On the merits, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s refusal to dismiss the defamation suit seeking to hold defendants liable for chastising Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and saying his global warming study “molested” data, concluding that Mann provided enough evidence to support his claims."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d9447c0-6322-439d-bf83-6deed85feceb

 

Junkscience.com is run by Steven Millowy, a self-styled researcher who has made himself quite a tidy living shilling for the tobacco industry. And that's not all the dubious causes he backs.

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

       Who do YOU trust? ?  The disgraced Warming Alarmist blog website *DeSmogBlog* ? ? ? 

   Only people around here overdosing on the Koolaid are the leftist/socialist/communist Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmists suffering their Thermo-phobia mental illness...

     ...(actually the Jonestown mass suicide brainwashed people used Flavor Aid, not Koolaid)

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, Catoni said:

       Who do YOU trust? ?  

Climatologists.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

You can carry on trying to prop up Michael Mann as much as you like, but you are in a very sparse minority.

Except for those at least 14 other research papers which supported his findings. And since you've contended that a "sparse minority" supports Mann's findings, i'm sure you'll have no trouble providing proof of that.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except for those at least 14 other research papers which supported his findings. And since you've contended that a "sparse minority" supports Mann's findings, i'm sure you'll have no trouble providing proof of that.

It's rather hard to prove a negative, so I will simply refer to the sources I mentioned earlier which include criticisms by boatloads of scientists of Mann's methods with regard to statistics, transparency and assumptions.

 

If you can't accept that Mann's efforts are deeply flawed, then I think you earn yourself a badge as a "denier".

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

It's rather hard to prove a negative, so I will simply refer to the sources I mentioned earlier which include criticisms by boatloads of scientists of Mann's methods with regard to statistics, transparency and assumptions.

 

 

A referral without a link. Typical.

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A referral without a link. Typical.

Unable to remember the link I provided in post #133. Typical.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Unable to remember the link I provided in post #133. Typical.

Unable? First off, I already pointed out that the link was misleading. In fact so misleading that you cited it to "prove" that the case was dismissed. And you still haven't even acknowledged your error. Will that ever happen? That said I"m glad you're self unwitting enough to bring it up again. You seem to believe that this legal case has some bearing on the validity of Mann's results. That's nonsense. A court procedure is not a scientific process - it's a legal one. And if it does get thrown out, it will be on legal grounds having to do with something called SLAPP - not scientific ones. Entirely irrelevant to the science.

Edited October 16, 2018 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

Unable. Or unwilling.

 

The link I am referring to, as you're well aware, is to a book called "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which lays bare the shenanigans which went into the creation of the wretched hockey stick.

 

I can understand your reluctance to follow the link, the book is devastating.