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

[RickBradford]

12 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED classic example of pot calling kettle black.

Excuse me,  but since you still haven't managed to get beyond calling people 'deniers', it is perfectly idiotic of you to accuse me of pushing a climate ideology when you have no idea whatever what my views on climate science and policy are.

 

 

[Catoni]

On 10/15/2018 at 9:50 PM, bristolboy said:

Climatologists.

  Okay.... how about climatologists who do not kowtow to the so-called concensus ? ? 

 

       Or do you only believe the Alarmist Gore Bull Warming climatologists shilling for big government and who work for the socialist politico-economic agenda? 

[Catoni]

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Still avoiding the actual issue about the Hockey stick, aren't you? Once again it has been independently confirmed  by researchers many times that the Hockey Stick is valid. And once again you avoid the issue to dwell on links and such. Why is the hockey stick rotten if it's been confirmed independently so many times?

>"Why is the hockey stick rotten if it's been confirmed independently so many times?"

 

     Confirmed by peers....  Like how members of a club all support each other and pat each other on the back...  nice... right?   Have to keep those wonderful international COP conferences going... with cavair and champagne and fleets of limousines and five star hotels....  flying first class.. if not by private jet..   Living like kings and collecting taxpayer money from government...while telling the working middle class and everyone else to cut back their lifestyle and raising their taxes

     Have to keep the big government and leftist foundation checks rolling in..  (Like leftist Theresa Heinz money... and especially George Soros money....  but even better is government money) 

    Dont forget.. we have to make sure there is a "problem"...keep screaming alarm about climate...  because if there actually is no reason to be alarmed...if there is really no problem....  the funds and conferences dry up...  No more cash.....  Squeeky wheel gets the grease don't you know ? ? 

 

   

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Excuse me,  but since you still haven't managed to get beyond calling people 'deniers', it is perfectly idiotic of you to accuse me of pushing a climate ideology when you have no idea whatever what my views on climate science and policy are.

 

 

I don't know about you but would you believe that some people cite polemical non-peer reviewed books by non-scientists as proof that research is invalid or even falsified? Just kidding. How could there be such people?

[Catoni]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know about you but would you believe that some people cite polemical non-peer reviewed books by non-scientists as proof that research is invalid or even falsified? Just kidding. How could there be such people?

   All those university degree letters behind a "scientist"'s name is no gaurantee of honesty and high moral standards......    all those letter do is get him/her their first job.

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, Catoni said:

  Okay.... how about climatologists who do not kowtow to the so-called concensus ? ? 

 

       Or do you only believe the Alarmist Gore Bull Warming climatologists shilling for big government and who work for the socialist politico-economic agenda? 

Well, what about the vast majority of scientists who are, as you allege, kowtowing. How do they accomplish this kowtowing? By your logic, the results of their research must be false. So either they're badly mistaken or their doing it on purpose. Since the odds of their being both mistaken and that their mistakes are all in alignment are vanishingly small, then by your logic they must be engaged in some kind of active conspiracy. 

Edit: I posted this and then saw that sure enough, you are alleging a conspiracy. There is no point in discussing this with someone who believes that over 25,000 sciientists worldwide are engaging in a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists live in their own hermetic world of improbabilities and it's best to leave them to inhabit it undisturbed.

[RickBradford]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know about you but would you believe that some people cite polemical non-peer reviewed books by non-scientists as proof that research is invalid or even falsified? Just kidding. How could there be such people?

Have you read the book in question, or are you merely spouting buzzwords from an ideology that isn't even your own, but seems to have been borrowed wholesale from the Green/Left climate playbook?

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Have you read the book in question, or are you merely spouting buzzwords from an ideology that isn't even your own, but seems to have been borrowed wholesale from the Green/Left climate playbook?

When the book is peer reviewed and published in a genuine scholarly journal, I'll read it. Until then, there's no way of knowing how factual or error-ridden it is.  

[RickBradford]

^^^

If you weren't such a committed ideologue, you might be able to make up your own mind "how factual or error-ridden it is" if you actually read the thing.

 

That's called skepticism and scientific inquiry, attributes sadly not often found in the ideologically possessed Green/Left.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

If you weren't such a committed ideologue, you might be able to make up your own mind "how factual or error-ridden it is" if you actually read the thing.

 

That's called skepticism and scientific inquiry, attributes sadly not often found in the ideologically possessed Green/Left.

Or because I have a limited amount of time in my life. And when even scientists who criticized Mann says his results were correct, and when independent researchers have repeatedly validated his results, why should I waste my time? If Michael Mann never existed, the hockey stick would still be a repeatedly confirmed phenomenon of climatologist research. I don't understand your obsession with one scientist rather than with the now large body of science that confirms the result of his research.

[nausea]

I'll be dead. Anyway, given that I have numerous nephews and nieces, and one or two mistakes out there, I reckon the sooner we get off this planet the better. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good strategy, in Darwinian terms.

[kwilco]

14 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Excuse me,  but since you still haven't managed to get beyond calling people 'deniers', it is perfectly idiotic of you to accuse me of pushing a climate ideology when you have no idea whatever what my views on climate science and policy are.

 

 

Neither have you?

[kwilco]

5 ways to spot a climate denier.

 

Here's a great checklist I've paraphrased from blogger Mark Hoofnagle

 

1 - the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? These conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals simply defy reality.

2 -  Selectivity, or cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum.  

3 - The use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming.
Lots of these big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies,

Some are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, Others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen.

Denialists try to gain legitimacy by using quotes of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) despite the fact they have total contempt for the  scientific processes they disagree with.

4 - Moving goalposts or impossible expectations – they refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they invent  new challenges for you to disprove and then, they just repeat their disproved challenges over and over again; every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one.  
They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

5 -  the catch-all of logical fallacies. You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! They drive fossil fuel cars, hybrid cars require fossil fuels…..God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

• Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia

[3NUMBAS]

too late to change //readers on here will all be dead by then so why worry

[kwilco]

This diagram will help you to sort out the climate deniers especially those on this thread.

Remember they are not debating....the "arguments" are fallacious, gainsaying and obfuscation, driven by an ideology or prejudiced and ill-thought out points of view....

 

they are all there...just tick them off.....and ignore those promulgators....

[kwilco]

Climate change is a massive and complicated topic and engagingin arguments with obfuscation and deniers is particularly unproductive and very long-winded...

If you really want to understand climate change and in particular how it relates to climate deniers, may I suggest you join this free course run by the University of Queensland.

 

https://m.facebook.com/denial101x

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/denial101x

 

[kwilco]

28 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

too late to change //readers on here will all be dead by then so why worry

As the article clearly states it isn't too late, I wonder why you say that.

As for "be dead by then", it seems a fantastically selfish attitude , (I assume you have no offspring or grandchildren?)

...do you have a specific date in mind?

[kwilco]

Think before you swallow any denier BS.........." the problem isn’t one of education, facts or knowledge. The problem is the way we think, and how our ideology skews what we are willing to believe, setting us up to fall for denialist arguments"    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2015/05/03/take-denialism-101/

[JimmyJ]

9 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

too late to change //readers on here will all be dead by then so why worry

This is a miserable attitude which makes life itself meaningless.

 

Why try to help that woman being raped - she's going to die eventually anyway.

 

Why try to educate children - they're going to die eventually anyway.

 

Why keep myself healthy - too late, I'm going to die eventually anyway.

 

why improve society? Why work to make a better world for those to come?

 

Your attitude negates your own humanity.

[mtls2005]

Thank goodness President Trump has "an instinct for science". All is well.

 

"There are good scientists on both sides" of the global warming debate, he added.

 

 

Trump says he has 'natural instinct for science' when it comes to climate change

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/17/trump-instinct-climate-change-910004

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

I think I just read (and cant find it in the enormous numbers of windows and tabs) that US Greenhouse Gases are dropping while the rest of the world is rising? Or is that Fake News?

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I think I just read (and cant find it in the enormous numbers of windows and tabs) that US Greenhouse Gases are dropping while the rest of the world is rising? Or is that Fake News?

So, the amount of greenhouse gases in the US atmosphere is declining while in the rest of the world it's rising?

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

So, the amount of greenhouse gases in the US atmosphere is declining while in the rest of the world it's rising?

Even by your reduced standards, that's pretty lame.

 

You know perfectly well that the question being asked is "Are US CO2 emissions falling while those in the rest of the world rising?"

 

To which the answer is, broadly speaking, Yes. The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

I think it was a press release from the EPA. Regardless, its sort of like that Guardian story the other day about reducing meat eating...but thats for the western world, the developing countries need to increase their nutrition so they get an increase in burgers.

[JohnDyson]

In 2005 they said the world was doomed by 2020 without rapid action. Everytime their hopeless forecasts get proven wrong they push the timeframe back.

 

Sad that people believe this nonsense.

 

 

[JohnDyson]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Even by your reduced standards, that's pretty lame.

 

You know perfectly well that the question being asked is "Are US CO2 emissions falling while those in the rest of the world rising?"

 

To which the answer is, broadly speaking, Yes. The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

That makes them smart. They know it's a hoax.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Even by your reduced standards, that's pretty lame.

 

You know perfectly well that the question being asked is "Are US CO2 emissions falling while those in the rest of the world rising?"

 

To which the answer is, broadly speaking, Yes. The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Given the past performance of the poster who made the comment, my caution was entirely warranted.

What's more, the observation he posted was, as per usual a misleading one to make it seem like its the US doing the reductions while the rest of the world is increasing.

How about this for an observation? 

I think I just read (and cant find it in the enormous numbers of windows and tabs) that Danish Greenhouse Gases are dropping while the rest of the world is rising? Or is that Fake News?

As for the  charge of reduced standards...that's coming from the party who wrote this:

"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."

Laughable

 

[Nyezhov]

35 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

To which the answer is, broadly speaking, Yes. The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Rick I found this News Article (this source I feel is always in the same vein as the Guardian and WaPo, ie substantially prejudiced, so should be checked) https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/17/co2-emissions-plummet-trump/

 

And I wonder have I see figures like this elsewhere? One of my issues in general with the "Climate Change" hype is its philosophical basis ie, the Marxist view that the capitalist Western World is bad so give up your creature comforts (like meat) so the rest of the world can eat burgers. Meanwhile, the US cuts and China spews. And the fires burn in Chiang Mai. And the air is worse in Bangkok than in LA.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Even by your reduced standards, that's pretty lame.

 

You know perfectly well that the question being asked is "Are US CO2 emissions falling while those in the rest of the world rising?"

 

To which the answer is, broadly speaking, Yes. The US has reduced emissions over the past few years, as has, I believe, the EU, while India and China, given a free ride by the "historic" Paris Accords, continue to spew out ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Is there even an off chance that it might ever have occurred to you that the reason the USA is now capable of cutting emissions the fastest is because most other developed nations have been historically way ahead of the USA in this regard and so now have far less fat to cut?

How's the USA doing on greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP as compared to other developed nations?

 

 

 

[JohnDyson]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Rick I found this News Article (this source I feel is always in the same vein as the Guardian and WaPo, ie substantially prejudiced, so should be checked)  https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/17/co2-emissions-plummet-trump/

 

And I wonder have I see figures like this elsewhere? One of my issues in general with the "Climate Change" hype is its philosophical basis ie, the Marxist view that the capitalist Western World is bad so give up your creature comforts (like meat) so the rest of the world can eat burgers. Meanwhile, the US cuts and China spews. And the fires burn in Chiang Mai. And the air is worse in Bangkok than in LA.

It's all fluff. Temps have hardly changed in 20 years. They label anyone who challenges the hoax as a "denier". The facts are temps have hardly moved in 20 years so they keep fiddling with data and pushing the timeframe out. Gore used to say 2010 was a tipping point then it was 2020 and now 2030.

 

Meanwhile in Chiang Mai or anywhere in Asian they do whatever they want.

 

In 2028 the hoaxers will say the world is doomed in 2050 etc

 

Religious types did they same for 2000 years. Same scam, different people.