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

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

One thing they'll probably ask, is why we p**sed away trillions of dollars on silly feel-good Green fantasies about climate catastrophe.

 

They'll complain about how we were so certain we knew what to do, impoverishing them with our spendthrift arrogance regarding "climate activities".

Ah, I see, they would not ask why the hell se abused half of our oil reserves and spew it out in the athmosphere, and also used the sea as a waste bin, as we cut down the forrests around the world! Interesting view, and it shows how far we are from each other on things that we feel are common sense!

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Ah, I see, they would not ask why the hell se abused half of our oil reserves and spew it out in the athmosphere, and also used the sea as a waste bin, as we cut down the forrests around the world! Interesting view, and it shows how far we are from each other on things that we feel are common sense!

In the West, we have been concerned about, and dealing with, pollution of the earth, for over 60 years already. So future generations might disapprove of how we tackled it, or our priorities in that direction, but they could hardly claim that we were blind to the problem.

 

We might be able to do more in that direction if we weren't wasting such vast sums on make-work "climate activities", the costs of which are running at $1 billion per day, from a 2014 calculation, so probably even more now.

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

In the West, we have been concerned about, and dealing with, pollution of the earth, for over 60 years already. So future generations might disapprove of how we tackled it, or our priorities in that direction, but they could hardly claim that we were blind to the problem.

 

We might be able to do more in that direction if we weren't wasting such vast sums on make-work "climate activities", the costs of which are running at $1 billion per day, from a 2014 calculation, so probably even more now.

It employees people in the long end, and keep us busy. Still an better option for us human beeings, than other fake religions collecting one tenth. Locally we see and feel pollution, so Im up for anything that can improve air, groundwater and sea, as well food. A healthier enviroment as whole. Ice age will come soon enough without our help.

 

First of all a little melt down, before iceage ????

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's a notable characteristic of religions and cults that they are unable to stand even the smallest deviation from their groupthink orthodoxy.

 

The more rabidly that climate zealots pursue the trial, incarceration and even branding and eventual execution of those who dare to challenge the orthodox view, the more the climate movement resembles a toxic cult, and less a scientific enterprise.

Except the continuing stream of  science keeps backing the climate change.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Except the continuing stream of  science keeps backing the climate change.

Another masterpiece of meaninglessness.

 

Of course science is "backing the climate change" when you define it so broadly. Everyone knows that climate changes, and always has.

 

What do you mean, precisely? Natural climate change, greenhouse gas-driven climate change, man-made climate change, gradual potentially hazardous climate change, dangerous climate change, immediately catastrophic climate change?

 

The moment you start asking questions that are detailed enough to be worth asking, the science becomes much more nuanced and uncertain (which is what the OP is about).

 

Activists hate nuance and uncertainty; all they want to know is who are the goodies and who are the baddies; the noble self-sacrificing climate justice warriors vs the evil, greedy, planet-hating "deniers". It's so infantile, it makes you weep.

 

It's also very unhelpful, and the best guarantee that nothing gets done.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Another masterpiece of meaninglessness.

 

Of course science is "backing the climate change" when you define it so broadly. Everyone knows that climate changes, and always has.

 

What do you mean, precisely? Natural climate change, greenhouse gas-driven climate change, man-made climate change, gradual potentially hazardous climate change, dangerous climate change, immediately catastrophic climate change?

 

The moment you start asking questions that are detailed enough to be worth asking, the science becomes much more nuanced and uncertain (which is what the OP is about).

 

Activists hate nuance and uncertainty; all they want to know is who are the goodies and who are the baddies; the noble self-sacrificing climate justice warriors vs the evil, greedy, planet-hating "deniers". It's so infantile, it makes you weep.

 

It's also very unhelpful, and the best guarantee that nothing gets done.

Once agan raising a silly semantic point.

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once agan raising a silly semantic point.

No, it's at the core of the issue.

 

If you don't define what you mean by climate change, not even slightly, then it renders any debate on the topic worthless - which is of course what the Green/Left activists want, with their constant refrain "The science is settled, the debate is over."

 

They resemble kidnappers with a hostage: "Do as we say, and you won't get hurt."

 

Sorry, but it's not working. Time for a new struggle meeting.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

No, it's at the core of the issue.

 

If you don't define what you mean by climate change, not even slightly, then it renders any debate on the topic worthless - which is of course what the Green/Left activists want, with their constant refrain "The science is settled, the debate is over."

 

They resemble kidnappers with a hostage: "Do as we say, and you won't get hurt."

 

Sorry, but it's not working. Time for a new struggle meeting.

99 percent of the world knows what is meant by climate change when invoked in this context. It's only people who are looking for gotcha moments pretend otherwise.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

99 percent of the world knows what is meant by climate change when invoked in this context. It's only people who are looking for gotcha moments pretend otherwise.

Another 99% consensus?

 

If you're going to view the problem at such low resolution, then no wonder nothing has been done.

 

Failing to define the problem you're trying to solve is poor science and poor policy. It's good activism, though.

[kwilco]

15 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's a notable characteristic of religions and cults that they are unable to stand even the smallest deviation from their groupthink orthodoxy.

You really don't see the irony, do you?

[metisdead]

A nonsense post has been reported and removed. 

[JimmyJ]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

No, it's at the core of the issue.

 

If you don't define what you mean by climate change, not even slightly, then it renders any debate on the topic worthless - which is of course what the Green/Left activists want, with their constant refrain "The science is settled, the debate is over."

 

They resemble kidnappers with a hostage: "Do as we say, and you won't get hurt."

 

Sorry, but it's not working. Time for a new struggle meeting.

 

5,000 posts later and Rick Bradford isn't even sure what he's been discussing for the previous 4,999 posts.

[Catoni]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Only future will tell who was right and wrong, and we aint going to be here! We will maybe se some short term signs, but still not enough proof for those who will not believe.

 

What do you believe the future generations will say about our last 100 year? 

 

 

They will say we went from the horse and buggy and steam engine train to putting men on the moon and having around the world jet flight in less than an average western individual human lifetime

     Quite an amazing feat if you ask me. 

     Someday we will have the capability to have interstellar space travel and to colonize the entire galaxy. 

[Catoni]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

No, it's at the core of the issue.

 

If you don't define what you mean by climate change, not even slightly, then it renders any debate on the topic worthless - which is of course what the Green/Left activists want, with their constant refrain "The science is settled, the debate is over."

 

They resemble kidnappers with a hostage: "Do as we say, and you won't get hurt."

 

Sorry, but it's not working. Time for a new struggle meeting.

I’m old enough to remember when the “scientific consensus” was that the continents were fixed in place and do not move. That’s what we were still being taught in Canadian schools in the 1950’s.

       More than 98% of scientists agreed the continents did not move...that they were fixed in place. It was only coincidence that South America and Africa looked like they might have been joined together before. 

    The scientist Alfred Wegener who came up with the continental drift/plate tectonics idea was laughed out of the university lecture halls, blacklisted by his peers, and found it next to impossible to get published. 

     It was not until long after his death that the mid-Atlantic ridge rift was discovered, and Alfred Wegener was proven right ...vindicated.

    Today, continental drift/plate tectonics.....moving continents is established....proven science. 

    The Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmists and their 97% of scientists claim really reminds me of the more than 98% of scientists who claimed the continents do not move.  

[Catoni]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Ah, I see, they would not ask why the hell se abused half of our oil reserves and spew it out in the athmosphere, and also used the sea as a waste bin, as we cut down the forrests around the world! Interesting view, and it shows how far we are from each other on things that we feel are common sense!

Uhm.... just to let you know.....there are now more trees growing in the northern hemisphere, than there were 100 years ago. 

    And the Earth as a whole has more trees now than 35 years ago. 

   For example, tree losses in Brazil have been balanced by forest gains in Europe, Asia and North America. 

  There have also been large tree planting programs in the world. China being a great example. 

    An increase of about 0.85 degree (I.P.C.C. figure) between 1880 - 2012 following the L.I.A. has also allowed forest to begin expansion into areas they previously could not grow in.

   

    Things are actually improving. And civilization historically has always always done best during warmer times. 

     

[JimmyJ]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

I’m old enough to remember when the “scientific consensus” was that the continents were fixed in place and do not move. That’s what we were still being taught in Canadian schools in the 1950’s.

       More than 98% of scientists agreed the continents did not move...that they were fixed in place. It was only coincidence that South America and Africa looked like they might have been joined together before. 

    The scientist Alfred Wegener who came up with the continental drift/plate tectonics idea was laughed out of the university lecture halls, blacklisted by his peers, and found it next to impossible to get published. 

     It was not until long after his death that the mid-Atlantic ridge rift was discovered, and Alfred Wegener was proven right ...vindicated.

    Today, continental drift/plate tectonics.....moving continents is established....proven science. 

    The Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmists and their 97% of scientists claim really reminds me of the more than 98% of scientists who claimed the continents do not move.  

 

 "More than 98% of scientists agreed the continents did not move..."

 

Link for the 98% figure? Are you speaking of pre WWI era?

 

"Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents). During the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the former reached important milestones proposing that convection currents might have driven the plate movements, and that spreading may have occurred below the sea within the oceanic crust. Concepts close to the elements now incorporated in plate tectonics were proposed by geophysicists and geologists (both fixists and mobilists) like Vening-Meinesz, Holmes, and Umbgrove."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

 

 

Note that as far as plate tectonics, science worked as it is supposed to - as additional data became available, the prevailing theory gave way to a new one with the addition of more physical evidence.

Eventually the data was overwhelming, just as catastrophic global warming evidence was overwhelming.

 

And the theory changed due to work by scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.

No scientific theory has ever been disproven and given way to a new theory due to right wing bloggers, or others who work outside the scientific community.

 

 

As far as I can tell, you and other climate change/global warming deniers are not proposing a new mechanism for evaluating climate.

You are looking at the same data that scientists are looking at, but you are interpreting it differently.

I will go with the 97% of trained professional scientists and the mountains of evidence - more every day.

 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

I’m old enough to remember when the “scientific consensus” was that the continents were fixed in place and do not move. That’s what we were still being taught in Canadian schools in the 1950’s.

       More than 98% of scientists agreed the continents did not move...that they were fixed in place. It was only coincidence that South America and Africa looked like they might have been joined together before. 

    The scientist Alfred Wegener who came up with the continental drift/plate tectonics idea was laughed out of the university lecture halls, blacklisted by his peers, and found it next to impossible to get published. 

     It was not until long after his death that the mid-Atlantic ridge rift was discovered, and Alfred Wegener was proven right ...vindicated.

    Today, continental drift/plate tectonics.....moving continents is established....proven science. 

    The Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmists and their 97% of scientists claim really reminds me of the more than 98% of scientists who claimed the continents do not move.  

You miss. The point...after looking at the evidence the overwhelming consensus is now that man  made climate change is real....... like when it was first put forward it wasn't universally accepted....it is now, by the same process that also accepts tectonic plates.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:33 AM, Jim1000 said:

We are doomed !

Factually correct. Even if we survive this, eventually the sun burns out and consumes the planets, and the universe also dies- it's just a matter of time, but everything ends. Presumably it all falls into a black hole and another big bang restarts the process. I hope they do it better next time around.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, kwilco said:

You miss. The point...after looking at the evidence the overwhelming consensus is now that man  made climate change is real....... like when it was first put forward it wasn't universally accepted....it is now, by the same process that also accepts tectonic plates.

Correct or not, the powers that be have no actual workable plan to change it back, and even if they had the ability to change anything, it wouldn't work like they want. They want to eliminate temperature increase, which isn't possible, no matter how much tax they put on us, or how many windmills/ electric cars they force us to use. Population growth and the insane obsession with "growth" over sustainability will not allow the necessary action to be taken. Elimination of the industrial society would actually work, but only because most of the human population would die off.

Running around like Chicken Little spouting catch phrases about how "we must do something to limit temperature rise" isn't going to change anything, though the taxes they want to impose will make most of us poorer.

If you think I'm wrong, just look at the projections for increased air travel in the next few years- a major polluting industry. If governments were serious about it, they'd ban all non essential air travel.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

As far as I can tell, you and other climate change/global warming deniers are not proposing a new mechanism for evaluating climate.

I'm not proposing any different way of evaluating climate. My position has always been that no one can actually do anything about it, so just enjoy while we can, as eventually, everything ends.

Personally, I'd like it to get a few degrees warmer, as it's been too cold for my liking recently.

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Factually correct. Even if we survive this, eventually the sun burns out and consumes the planets, and the universe also dies- it's just a matter of time, but everything ends. Presumably it all falls into a black hole and another big bang restarts the process. I hope they do it better next time around.

The Universe die, when our sun die?

 

Eloborate better? I cant see anything else than perfectness in mother nature. When to many of something, they go selfdestruct like a timebomb. 

[JimmyJ]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The Universe die, when our sun die?...

 

 

 

I love hummingbirds also.

[Hummin]

21 hours ago, Catoni said:

Uhm.... just to let you know.....there are now more trees growing in the northern hemisphere, than there were 100 years ago. 

    And the Earth as a whole has more trees now than 35 years ago. 

   For example, tree losses in Brazil have been balanced by forest gains in Europe, Asia and North America. 

  There have also been large tree planting programs in the world. China being a great example. 

    An increase of about 0.85 degree (I.P.C.C. figure) between 1880 - 2012 following the L.I.A. has also allowed forest to begin expansion into areas they previously could not grow in.

   

    Things are actually improving. And civilization historically has always always done best during warmer times. 

     

A bit more complicated than just a tree for tree recovery

 

https://www.google.no/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/environment/the-planet-now-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago

[Catoni]

33 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The Universe die, when our sun die?

 

Eloborate better? I cant see anything else than perfectness in mother nature. When to many of something, they go selfdestruct like a timebomb. 

 

     Our sun will die in 4 or 5 billion years.  But its temprature will slowly increase until then.  About 500 million years from now the Sun will be too hot for human life on this planet.    Before then, we must develope interstellar travel and move off-world to other star systems.  

 

   The universe will continue to exist long long long after our Sun is gone...

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

 

     Our sun will die in 4 or 5 billion years.  But its temprature will slowly increase until then.  About 500 million years from now the Sun will be too hot for human life on this planet.    Before then, we must develope interstellar travel and move off-world to other star systems.  

 

   The universe will continue to exist long long long after our Sun is gone...

If we do not know today anything about human footprint on this planet due to clima changes, we for sure know less about our universe lifespan and future. If we just could preserve better what we have, and do not disturb our nature that is designed for our best right now, we could be better off, but again, we just do not know whats in there for us in the future. Our universe can be history tomorow for all we know, but it his here now we live, and your children and grandchildren is going to deal with our mistakes, or abuse of this planet.

 

Very intersting article, but still, it just another theory!

 

https://www.google.no/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2010/10/101027-science-space-universe-end-of-time-multiverse-inflation

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:47 PM, Catoni said:

 

     Our sun will die in 4 or 5 billion years.  But its temprature will slowly increase until then.  About 500 million years from now the Sun will be too hot for human life on this planet.    Before then, we must develope interstellar travel and move off-world to other star systems.  

 

   The universe will continue to exist long long long after our Sun is gone...

True, but eventually even the universe dies. If it started in a big bang it must be finite and it will die in a whimper as the stars run out of fuel.

 

I do hope that humans never develop interstellar travel. I hate the idea that we have <deleted> our planet and just go elsewhere to do it more places.

[Catoni]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True, but eventually even the universe dies. If it started in a big bang it must be finite and it will die in a whimper as the stars run out of fuel.

 

I do hope that humans never develop interstellar travel. I hate the idea that we have <deleted> our planet and just go elsewhere to do it more places.

 

     Humans are explorers.  It's just the way they are.  They started when they climbed down out of the trees in Africa and started walking upright.  They moved across Africa... then into Asia and Europe... on foot. Always going further.  Then they crossed oceans.  Now we've been to the moon... .and then Mars maybe while I'm still alive.  

   Eventually... yes....  humans will travel the stars, colonize the Galaxy..... and perhaps even other galaxies.....who knows ? ?  They will develop ways of space travel that seem magic to us today.  Like our Boeing 777-300ER jets would be magic to the ancient Romans and Greeks. 

          Like I said.....it's just the way they are.   They will colonize the universe if they don't get wiped out in a massive asteroid impact soon. 

     Neither the last Glacial Maximum, nor the Holocene Climate Optimum nor the Toba Super Volcano Eruption managed to finish them off.

   A couple of degrees increase in the Earth's temp will do nothing to even slow them down. Humans won't even miss a step...  They will simply enjoy the little increase in warmth and shorter winters and eventually spread out across the Universe.  

     It's just the way they are. 

     

[727Sky]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6388557/Polar-bears-threatening-native-Inuit-populations-warns-controversial-government-report.html

 

Quote

Polar bear numbers are so HIGH they threaten native Inuit populations, claims controversial Canadian government report bitterly contested by environmentalists who have made creature the icon of global warming

• Polar bears are one of the enduring symbols of the environmental cause
• However, a controversial report has claimed their populations are increasing 
• Report found the growing bear population poses a threat to native population 
• However, scientists say that climate change has pushed bears closer to humans
• Warming has caused ice to melt forcing the creatures to hunt further afield 
• They dispute government claims that polar bear populations are growing

Interesting

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, 727Sky said:

(Daily Mail article)

 

Interesting

Even more interesting is the fact that activists have recently realised that playing the polar bear card is a loser.

 

They bigged up the probable extinction of polar bears and made it a (often photoshopped) poster-bear for the evils of global warming, along with the usual raft of fake news (see Ursus Bogus).

 

As the polar bears are doing so well, activists have held a struggle meeting and come up with a new message, as Leanne Clare, senior manager of communications of the WWF’s Arctic Program explained in a media interview:

 

“When the symbol gets bigger than the region itself and people don’t realize that the polar bear is just one piece of a whole diverse web of life in the Arctic, then it can become almost a barrier. 

 

"We have to talk about that — for whatever reason people have a huge attachment to polar bears — and then figure out how to utilize this attachment and get people to go beyond this and attach themselves to the Arctic region as such."

 

I love that "for whatever reason". The simple reason is that the activists pushed the fate of the polar bear as hard as they could, thinking they were on a winner. Now that's been busted, they are trying to distance themselves from it.

 

Textbook activist mendacity.