1 hour ago, xylophone said:

So one side is supposedly manipulating the data to suit their agenda, but those that deny climate change aren't??

 

I can't buy that, and try telling your story to the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands or the inhabitants of Greenland who have seen a major glacier disappear.

 

PS. And who is, "Yo, Phil"??

 Professor Phil Jones, former head of the of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA)

its from the hacked climategate scandal,

he ended up in a hearing before the english MP committee,

the hearings are available on youtube where he state that its common practice within climate science not to reveal underlying raw data for their theory,

-this is a 180 degree reverse from all other sciences

where verification & replication is mandatory for any hypothesis

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientist-admits-leaked-emails-were-pretty-awful-1914295.html

 

the other paper you saw with the 'we gotta get rid of the medieval warm period' was also subject to hearing before US senate available on youtube

 

lastly the guy you should google for

marshal islands or anything else regarding sea rise is Nils-Axel Mörner,

he has submitted 650 articles and are also on youtube

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

 

lastly there are several data about greenland ice increasing,

here is one of several

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieDl06jLLfY

 

30 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

More accurately, "it hasn't happened in 30 years, but we still believe it's just round the corner."

 

Harold Camping had a similar level of credibility.

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

Yep heads in sand will do it!!

14 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

 

lastly the guy you should google for

marshal islands or anything else regarding sea rise is Nils-Axel Mörner,

he has submitted 650 articles and are also on youtube

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

I have to say that you do make a convincing argument, and not only that you have been most informative in your posts, so I will have a look at some of the items you mention.

However to save me trawling through thousands of pages, and as you are very well read on the subject, could you please then answer a couple of questions?

– The glacier in Iceland which has just melted away – – is this something which has happened before or is this a one-off?

– As regards the rising of the oceans, and in particular in the Pacific, I don't see anywhere stating that this has happened before and certainly for the people of those islands, it appears also to be the first time?

This is not a trick post or anything like it, but it could save me a lot of time and you may even have a convert!!

23 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I have to say that you do make a convincing argument, and not only that you have been most informative in your posts, so I will have a look at some of the items you mention.

However to save me trawling through thousands of pages, and as you are very well read on the subject, could you please then answer a couple of questions?

– The glacier in Iceland which has just melted away – – is this something which has happened before or is this a one-off?

– As regards the rising of the oceans, and in particular in the Pacific, I don't see anywhere stating that this has happened before and certainly for the people of those islands, it appears also to be the first time?

This is not a trick post or anything like it, but it could save me a lot of time and you may even have a convert!!

i can tell your inquires are authentic.

climate in iceland is cyclical just like everywhere else,

but its currents that is the main driver there.

i should add that its alarmists modus operandi to start the graph at a convenient peak, in the case below

they would start the graph at the moment it bottomed out 1980 and leave everything prior blank, and while at it replace oscillation with co2

 

here is a youtube with nils axel with the popular maldives,

there really is an awful lot from him if you wish to delve

deeper, but some of those pdf's just arent for layman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jOENwyklg

 

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I think you'll find I read all the climate threads and contribute to them with solutions and knowledge. Which is more than I can say for shrill denialists. You're right - I can't be bothered to  look them up. If I remember correctly, I expressed surprise a person of your experience in the Antarctic could be in that camp.

 

Given that I have posted many times my solutions, if you have not read them it seems strange to me then, but I have a theory as to why that should be.

What has my experience in Antarctica to do with anything? Back then scientists predicted the planet would cool.

What I do know about Antarctica is that it wasn't always covered in ice, and a lot of people that call themselves "scientists" are just BS artists. A lot of scientists came through the base during summer.

 

If talking about shrill, Thunberg is an advocate of the shrill method of talking at people.

15 hours ago, xylophone said:

something which nobody else in the world seems to have done right now, irrespective of how learned they are

IMO no one has actually come up with a solution. It's all about how to make money out of it.

Meanwhile governments keep allowing millions and millions of petrol cars to be sold, and plan for a large increase in air travel. Does that seem like the actions of people that believe CO2 is destroying the planet?

Telling us endlessly that the sky is falling and we have to do something, is not doing something. It's just talking.

The scam is so blatent that they even fly into the conferences they have instead of doing it by video conferencing.

 

How many trees in rain forests have NOT been cut down because of government action? It's actually increasing.

 

IMO the whole thing is a sham orchestrated by rich people that want to get richer by selling electric cars and bird killing windmills.

14 hours ago, xylophone said:

As regards the rising of the oceans, and in particular in the Pacific,

Unless the sea level in the Pacific is different to the sea level elsewhere ( and NZ is on the edge of the Pacific ), it's not happening, IMO. While it might be a centimeter or so higher than when I was a child many decades ago, it hasn't risen noticeably in NZ. Not a single person that I have heard is claiming that the sea is rising in NZ. The ports are not raising the docks to accommodate higher sea levels, the coastal  embankment that the Wellington railway runs on isn't, to my knowledge being raised.

If people want to say that sea level is rising overall, a bit more evidence is required than what they have come up with so far.

 

There are other possible reasons for an apparent sea level rise, as in the islands sinking as tectonic plates move.

Back to English class.

 

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless the sea level in the Pacific is different to the sea level elsewhere ( and NZ is on the edge of the Pacific ), it's not happening, IMO. While it might be a centimeter or so higher than when I was a child many decades ago, it hasn't risen noticeably in NZ. Not a single person that I have heard is claiming that the sea is rising in NZ. The ports are not raising the docks to accommodate higher sea levels, the coastal  embankment that the Wellington railway runs on isn't, to my knowledge being raised.

If people want to say that sea level is rising overall, a bit more evidence is required than what they have come up with so far.

 

There are other possible reasons for an apparent sea level rise, as in the islands sinking as tectonic plates move.

this is the worlds premier authority on sea level take on it,

he was actually contracted as the head of the sea level

group in the first ipcc report, but they had a fallout

as ipcc ignored his report altogether in the publication

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

15 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i can tell your inquires are authentic.

climate in iceland is cyclical just like everywhere else,

but its currents that is the main driver there.

i should add that its alarmists modus operandi to start the graph at a convenient peak, in the case below

they would start the graph at the moment it bottomed out 1980 and leave everything prior blank, and while at it replace oscillation with co2

 

here is a youtube with nils axel with the popular maldives,

there really is an awful lot from him if you wish to delve

deeper, but some of those pdf's just arent for layman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jOENwyklg

 

Well, quite where to start......... I did look at the YouTube clip regarding the Maldives and for me there was not a lot of conclusive evidence about anything and in fact the man himself used such phrases as "about" the same sea level, and the example of the tree was also not conclusive because if sea levels had/have risen by a few centimetres, then there's no reason to suspect that the tree would have been washed away by this very slight increase?

 

Before I continue with some other snippets that I have collected, I noticed that another poster is pinning all of this climate change scare on the industrialists who want to push electric cars and windmills and so on, for profit, however that has the equation back to front.

 

More likely, in fact probably much more likely that the heavy hitters in the fossil fuels industries, the manufacturing industries and anything associated with it which produces gases of any description, would be those which would want to spread false information and denigrate the climate change folk. There is a reason they are called climate change deniers, because that's how they come across and it is in their best interests for profit etc to be able to deny there is such a thing as climate change or global warming.

 

Interestingly, after the YouTube clip you asked me to watch there was another YouTube clip on Kiribati and that had the villagers building large walls to keep out the increase in sea levels??

 

Now for some other information, and there is plenty of it out there for anyone who wants to look, and IMO it is concrete and not cherry picked like much of the arguments from the denial folk, and there is absolutely no reason why organisations such as NASA, Nat Geo and a few others would want to spread untruths about the planets climate and warming, because there is nothing in it for them, BUT, there certainly is for those who want to keep mining, drilling and burning fossil fuels, because there are huge profits to be made in this and those profits can be maintained if lobbyists are employed in governments, and if untruths are spread about the effects of global warming and climate change.

More than 50 years ago, scientists at major fossil fuel companies considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction. Their concerns echoed the latest science of the time, which showed an increasing link between fossil fuels and global warming

Corporate decision makers didn’t listen. Instead, they chose to downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, engaging in a decades-long campaign against climate action. Their tactics included everything from counterfeit science, to the harassment of scientists, to manufactured uncertainty with no scientific basis.

"Even today, industry trade groups and associations spread disinformation on climate change, while corporate lobbyists influence politicians and regulators—all with the financial backing and support of major fossil fuel companies".

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate Union of Concerned Scientists

In addition this graph, seems to show more clearly what others have tried to show, but which have been undermined by sKeptics.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

And this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.
Multiple lines of evidence, using different methods, show that human influence is the only plausible explanation for the patterns and magnitude of changes that have been detected.
This human influence is largely due to our activities that release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well sunlight absorbing soot. The main sources of these warming gases and particles are fossil fuel burning, cement production, land cover change (especially deforestation) and agriculture. https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-the-science-says-about-five-common-climate-change-myths

In my conclusion on all that I have seen, read and understood, I believe that global warming/climate change is real, however I do thank you for encouraging me to read more on the subject, because I have learnt from many articles and at one time I thought that I might be a climate change skeptic convert, however the more I have read, the more I am convinced that the global warming/climate change scenario is correct, and that the only people who would want, or who would benefit from denying this are those large corporations, industries, wealthy companies and individuals.

I will continue my reading, and thank you for the prompt, and I mean that most sincerely.

 

Having said that, I don't see any point in coming back on this thread to argue any other points because that which I have posted above, really do echo my beliefs.

33 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well, quite where to start......... I did look at the YouTube clip regarding the Maldives and for me there was not a lot of conclusive evidence about anything and in fact the man himself used such phrases as "about" the same sea level, and the example of the tree was also not conclusive because if sea levels had/have risen by a few centimetres, then there's no reason to suspect that the tree would have been washed away by this very slight increase?

 

Before I continue with some other snippets that I have collected, I noticed that another poster is pinning all of this climate change scare on the industrialists who want to push electric cars and windmills and so on, for profit, however that has the equation back to front.

 

More likely, in fact probably much more likely that the heavy hitters in the fossil fuels industries, the manufacturing industries and anything associated with it which produces gases of any description, would be those which would want to spread false information and denigrate the climate change folk. There is a reason they are called climate change deniers, because that's how they come across and it is in their best interests for profit etc to be able to deny there is such a thing as climate change or global warming.

 

Interestingly, after the YouTube clip you asked me to watch there was another YouTube clip on Kiribati and that had the villagers building large walls to keep out the increase in sea levels??

 

Now for some other information, and there is plenty of it out there for anyone who wants to look, and IMO it is concrete and not cherry picked like much of the arguments from the denial folk, and there is absolutely no reason why organisations such as NASA, Nat Geo and a few others would want to spread untruths about the planets climate and warming, because there is nothing in it for them, BUT, there certainly is for those who want to keep mining, drilling and burning fossil fuels, because there are huge profits to be made in this and those profits can be maintained if lobbyists are employed in governments, and if untruths are spread about the effects of global warming and climate change.

More than 50 years ago, scientists at major fossil fuel companies considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction. Their concerns echoed the latest science of the time, which showed an increasing link between fossil fuels and global warming

Corporate decision makers didn’t listen. Instead, they chose to downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, engaging in a decades-long campaign against climate action. Their tactics included everything from counterfeit science, to the harassment of scientists, to manufactured uncertainty with no scientific basis.

"Even today, industry trade groups and associations spread disinformation on climate change, while corporate lobbyists influence politicians and regulators—all with the financial backing and support of major fossil fuel companies".

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate Union of Concerned Scientists

In addition this graph, seems to show more clearly what others have tried to show, but which have been undermined by sKeptics.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

And this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.
Multiple lines of evidence, using different methods, show that human influence is the only plausible explanation for the patterns and magnitude of changes that have been detected.
This human influence is largely due to our activities that release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well sunlight absorbing soot. The main sources of these warming gases and particles are fossil fuel burning, cement production, land cover change (especially deforestation) and agriculture. https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-the-science-says-about-five-common-climate-change-myths

In my conclusion on all that I have seen, read and understood, I believe that global warming/climate change is real, however I do thank you for encouraging me to read more on the subject, because I have learnt from many articles and at one time I thought that I might be a climate change skeptic convert, however the more I have read, the more I am convinced that the global warming/climate change scenario is correct, and that the only people who would want, or who would benefit from denying this are those large corporations, industries, wealthy companies and individuals.

I will continue my reading, and thank you for the prompt, and I mean that most sincerely.

 

Having said that, I don't see any point in coming back on this thread to argue any other points because that which I have posted above, really do echo my beliefs.

the funding for climate research has increased by more

then a factor of 20, that is an incentive for anyone

wanting government funding,

and its not just giant NASA that keeps on adjusting their

historical records downwards to create an upward trend,

upstarters are getting $850.000 for studying connection between climate change and prairie dogs in boulder colorado, makes me wanna study tjing tjoks relation

to climate change for a reasonable sum of 20 million baht

 

IPCC itself is more invested then any other part in the analysis and tampering of data,

because their mandate is to find a connection of man made global warming,

if they do not, their mandate expire and

the funding stop, they are the ones who will go extinct if analysis doesnt swing their way.

to have any hope of getting a balanced view out of IPCC, you would have to redefine their purpose of existing

 

 

 

eisenhower farewell address

...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address#The_speech

52 minutes ago, xylophone said:

there is absolutely no reason why organisations such as NASA, Nat Geo and a few others would want to spread untruths about the planets climate and warming, because there is nothing in it for them,

I'm afraid that is naive in the extreme. There is everything in it for them.

 

If there is no climate "crisis", then organisations set up to "combat" it will lose their funding. Where would the European Climate Foundation be if they came out and said "There is no problem"? Out of business, that's where. Where would ClimateWorks be? Or the APN, ESIP, ESSL, ECOSOC, GCP, WCRP and a small army of other NGOs which have sprung out of nowhere to deal with the climate "crisis". NASA is not a 100% climate-focused organisation, but it's heading in that direction.

 

Everyone has an agenda, whether it be to downplay the effects of climate change or to hype it. Until you can see the motivations on both sides of the argument, you will never come close to an accurate assessment of the problem.

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I'm afraid that is naive in the extreme. There is everything in it for them.

 

If there is no climate "crisis", then organisations set up to "combat" it will lose their funding.

Well it is a "chicken and egg" situation then........and I prefer to believe what I have read as regards global warming/climate change.

 

IMO the naïveté is in believing that global warming/climate change was "invented" to be able to then support organisations which sprang up to support it! Cart before the horse.

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

IMO the naïveté is in believing that global warming/climate change was "invented" to be able to then support organisations which sprang up to support it! Cart before the horse.

Certainly, anyone who believes that global warming was "invented" is being, well, rather extreme, but that is not even remotely my position.

 

Global warming became an issue in the 1980s and 1990s for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad. Organisations that purported to "tackle" global warming found it easy to attract funding, and it has only got easier as the world has got richer.

 

These organisations (of which there are thousands) do nothing, for the most part. They create nothing, they produce nothing, they have no goods or services to sell (a few do "consulting") so they are entirely reliant on funding and the goodwill of foundations.

 

If the global climate "crisis" withers away, so do they.

17 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well it is a "chicken and egg" situation then........and I prefer to believe what I have read as regards global warming/climate change.

 

IMO the naïveté is in believing that global warming/climate change was "invented" to be able to then support organisations which sprang up to support it! Cart before the horse.

as far as i can trace it, NASA went into the climate change

politics 1971, but the narrative then was that co2 would cause ice age, and predictions were dire. in all likelihood

the dire forecasts was to stimulate funding for more studies.

in 1986 the NASA narrative took a 180 degree turn and co2 would now cause global warming, perhaps the ice age prophesy didnt generate wanted funding ?

or perhaps the new director wanted to break new grounds ? either way the predictions were predictably dire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmMenIpz2RA&t=33s

 

but the part i find so offensive, both on behalf of my 40+

hobby of reading history, and my formal education of

extracting data from statistics and graphs, is this sneaky way of presenting data record, this is why they provoke me

to combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrsA0XlYGg

 

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

in 1986 the NASA narrative took a 180 degree turn and co2 would now cause global warming, perhaps the ice age prophesy didnt generate wanted funding ?

Well, the temperature record shows cooling from 1940 to 1975, and various people panicked and predicted a certain return to neo-boreal (near ice-age) conditions.

 

From 1975, the temperature record began to show warming, and the global warming crusade began to gather steam. It wasn't until James Hansen became head of NASA GISS in 1981 that NASA went full-on global warming. The gradual transition of GISS from space studies to global warming studies is quite instructive. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/ 

 

A cynic might say that global cooling is an unpopular policy because there's nobody to blame. It's just the sun, or Milankovitch cycles, or cosmic rays.

 

That's very different from global warming, for which people can be blamed, which is much more satisfying. It started, unsurprisingly, with the fossil fuel industry, then broadened out to cover capitalism as a whole, and now blames entire cultures and countries - essentially, the West.

 

As Greta herself put it recently: "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it [the climate crisis]. We need to dismantle them all."

 

What started out as a scientific endeavor has now become just another social justice charade.

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Certainly, anyone who believes that global warming was "invented" is being, well, rather extreme, but that is not even remotely my position.

 

Global warming became an issue in the 1980s and 1990s for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad. Organisations that purported to "tackle" global warming found it easy to attract funding, and it has only got easier as the world has got richer.

 

These organisations (of which there are thousands) do nothing, for the most part. They create nothing, they produce nothing, they have no goods or services to sell (a few do "consulting") so they are entirely reliant on funding and the goodwill of foundations.

 

If the global climate "crisis" withers away, so do they.

 

One could deduce from your post that you agree that global warming became an issue, but you don't like how many "organisations" etc have cropped up to jump on the bandwagon to get funding.

 

This especially as "they create nothing, do nothing........... ".

 

I have to agree with the majority of scientists and organisations in the world when they say that global warming/climate change is real.

 

PS. I don't believe that it was invented, but a bit of hyperbole goes a long way, and anyway at that moment in time I couldn't think of another word to insert which would play on the point I was trying to put across.

 

5 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well, quite where to start......... I did look at the YouTube clip regarding the Maldives and for me there was not a lot of conclusive evidence about anything and in fact the man himself used such phrases as "about" the same sea level, and the example of the tree was also not conclusive because if sea levels had/have risen by a few centimetres, then there's no reason to suspect that the tree would have been washed away by this very slight increase?

 

Before I continue with some other snippets that I have collected, I noticed that another poster is pinning all of this climate change scare on the industrialists who want to push electric cars and windmills and so on, for profit, however that has the equation back to front.

 

More likely, in fact probably much more likely that the heavy hitters in the fossil fuels industries, the manufacturing industries and anything associated with it which produces gases of any description, would be those which would want to spread false information and denigrate the climate change folk. There is a reason they are called climate change deniers, because that's how they come across and it is in their best interests for profit etc to be able to deny there is such a thing as climate change or global warming.

 

Interestingly, after the YouTube clip you asked me to watch there was another YouTube clip on Kiribati and that had the villagers building large walls to keep out the increase in sea levels??

 

Now for some other information, and there is plenty of it out there for anyone who wants to look, and IMO it is concrete and not cherry picked like much of the arguments from the denial folk, and there is absolutely no reason why organisations such as NASA, Nat Geo and a few others would want to spread untruths about the planets climate and warming, because there is nothing in it for them, BUT, there certainly is for those who want to keep mining, drilling and burning fossil fuels, because there are huge profits to be made in this and those profits can be maintained if lobbyists are employed in governments, and if untruths are spread about the effects of global warming and climate change.

More than 50 years ago, scientists at major fossil fuel companies considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction. Their concerns echoed the latest science of the time, which showed an increasing link between fossil fuels and global warming

Corporate decision makers didn’t listen. Instead, they chose to downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, engaging in a decades-long campaign against climate action. Their tactics included everything from counterfeit science, to the harassment of scientists, to manufactured uncertainty with no scientific basis.

"Even today, industry trade groups and associations spread disinformation on climate change, while corporate lobbyists influence politicians and regulators—all with the financial backing and support of major fossil fuel companies".

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate Union of Concerned Scientists

In addition this graph, seems to show more clearly what others have tried to show, but which have been undermined by sKeptics.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

And this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.
Multiple lines of evidence, using different methods, show that human influence is the only plausible explanation for the patterns and magnitude of changes that have been detected.
This human influence is largely due to our activities that release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well sunlight absorbing soot. The main sources of these warming gases and particles are fossil fuel burning, cement production, land cover change (especially deforestation) and agriculture. https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-the-science-says-about-five-common-climate-change-myths

In my conclusion on all that I have seen, read and understood, I believe that global warming/climate change is real, however I do thank you for encouraging me to read more on the subject, because I have learnt from many articles and at one time I thought that I might be a climate change skeptic convert, however the more I have read, the more I am convinced that the global warming/climate change scenario is correct, and that the only people who would want, or who would benefit from denying this are those large corporations, industries, wealthy companies and individuals.

I will continue my reading, and thank you for the prompt, and I mean that most sincerely.

 

Having said that, I don't see any point in coming back on this thread to argue any other points because that which I have posted above, really do echo my beliefs.

I see no reason to doubt your conviction, BUT. IMO if and that's a big IF it's true, then the opportunity to do something about it ended about 4 billion people ago. Fast coming up on 8 billion and accelerating.

I'm happy that I never had kids to suffer, but I think IF it's true, then it's all over for humanity.

In real terms, nothing is being done that could possibly change the situation.

Ask yourself why, if it's real, and governments believe in it,  they haven't put every country in the world on a war footing to force people to change to "save humanity"? Ask why air travel is being encouraged to INCREASE flights? Ask why petrol cars are not being banned in cities? Ask why more public transport is not being introduced?

Till the climate people use teleconferencing instead of flying to exotic holiday locations I don't believe it's true at all. Just another scam, IMO.

If governments actually believed in a climate emergency, wouldn't they be doing more about it?

13 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I have to agree with the majority of scientists and organisations in the world when they say that global warming/climate change is real.

Yes, but that's not the point is it? It's true, but trivially true.

 

To say that it is "real" doesn't address questions of whether it is harmful or beneficial, and how much so, whether CO2 is the main driver, and whether current suggestions as to what to do about it are valid or feasible.

 

That's where the action is; and much of the action has been to try to force political moves on the basis not of science, but of ideology surrounding things like "colonialism".

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, but that's not the point is it? It's true, but trivially true.

 

To say that it is "real" doesn't address questions of whether it is harmful or beneficial, and how much so, whether CO2 is the main driver, and whether current suggestions as to what to do about it are valid or feasible.

 

That's where the action is; and much of the action has been to try to force political moves on the basis not of science, but of ideology surrounding things like "colonialism".

Notice how small Pacific nations blame the "West" for the illusory sea level rise, but think that some cash will alleviate the situation. I say illusory as there has been no significant or apparent sea level rise in NZ over the past 55 years, while they claim the sea is actually higher in their part of the Pacific than it is on the shores of NZ. Perhaps they should borrow some of the boats the Thais used to solve the floods in Bkk a few years ago.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Notice how small Pacific nations blame the "West" for the illusory sea level rise, but think that some cash will alleviate the situation.

The current ransom demand is $300 billion per year, but the demand is not coming directly from the countries themselves.

 

The demand is coming from a gaggle of 150 environmental NGOs who have taken it upon themselves to speak for the non-Western rest of the world.

Quote

 

Green groups this week claimed the increased pace and intensity of climate disasters, such as the twin cyclones that devastated parts of Mozambique this year, means that funding needs boosting to keep track.

 

They said the amount needed for loss and damage would top $300 billion annually by 2030.

 

“Without finance to help countries cope with climate-induced loss and damage, the most vulnerable parts of the world will sink deeper into debt and poverty every time they are hit by climate disasters they did not cause,”

 

Guess who'll be advising how that money is spent .....

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/un-rich-nations-climate-reparations/

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

The current ransom demand is $300 billion per year, but the demand is not coming directly from the countries themselves.

 

The demand is coming from a gaggle of 150 environmental NGOs who have taken it upon themselves to speak for the non-Western rest of the world.

Guess who'll be advising how that money is spent .....

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/un-rich-nations-climate-reparations/

Beats doing a real job!

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Beats doing a real job!

And you get to feel morally superior to the rest of humanity as well!

 

You can see why NGOs have become so widespread.

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In real terms, nothing is being done that could possibly change the situation.

Ask yourself why, if it's real, and governments believe in it,  they haven't put every country in the world on a war footing to force people to change to "save humanity"? Ask why air travel is being encouraged to INCREASE flights? Ask why petrol cars are not being banned in cities? Ask why more public transport is not being introduced?

Till the climate people use teleconferencing instead of flying to exotic holiday locations I don't believe it's true at all. Just another scam, IMO.

If governments actually believed in a climate emergency, wouldn't they be doing more about it?

Well, a few posts ago I was said to be naïve in my thinking, however, and I mean this respectfully, I think your post shows some of the same traits.

 

The reason why progress is slow is because major polluters (oil, cars, petroleum, and just about anything else which pollutes) spend billions (yes billions) of dollars every year on government lobbyists. And if you add that to the fact that politicians who represent "areas"/states and so on which are responsible for fossil fuels/automobile production/power generation and other polluting industries, then it's well known that they will not support something which will put their jobs in jeopardy – – yes it is greed and selfishness which is preventing major change in this area.

 

The governments are made up of individuals and those individuals have vested interests in keeping their constituents happy, even if it means risking the future for inaction taken today.

 

The above is normally the case in Western democratic societies, but in others, then graft, kickbacks, greed and personal enrichment produce the same effect.

 

Luckily enough I won't be around when the proverbial hits the fan, but I do fear for the future of younger generations.

Just now, xylophone said:

Well, a few posts ago I was said to be naïve in my thinking, however, and I mean this respectfully, I think your post shows some of the same traits.

 

The reason why progress is slow is because major polluters (oil, cars, petroleum, and just about anything else which pollutes) spend billions (yes billions) of dollars every year on government lobbyists. And if you add that to the fact that politicians who represent "areas"/states and so on which are responsible for fossil fuels/automobile production/power generation and other polluting industries, then it's well known that they will not support something which will put their jobs in jeopardy – – yes it is greed and selfishness which is preventing major change in this area.

 

The governments are made up of individuals and those individuals have vested interests in keeping their constituents happy, even if it means risking the future for inaction taken today.

 

The above is normally the case in Western democratic societies, but in others, then graft, kickbacks, greed and personal enrichment produce the same effect.

 

Luckily enough I won't be around when the proverbial hits the fan, but I do fear for the future of younger generations.

I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true, but IF there really is a climate crisis, and I do disagree that there is, humans will have killed themselves off by not doing anything much at all.

The best thing is having less children to grow up and want stuff, but fat chance of that happening.

53 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The current ransom demand is $300 billion per year, but the demand is not coming directly from the countries themselves.

 

The demand is coming from a gaggle of 150 environmental NGOs who have taken it upon themselves to speak for the non-Western rest of the world.

Guess who'll be advising how that money is spent .....

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/un-rich-nations-climate-reparations/

tbh i think I am most qualified to distribute

the cash among the islanders, so,

transfer the $300 billion into my bank account and ill see to it

that the islanders gets their fair share after i deducted mine

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true, but IF there really is a climate crisis, and I do disagree that there is, humans will have killed themselves off by not doing anything much at all.

The best thing is having less children to grow up and want stuff, but fat chance of that happening.

Yes that's quite likely, and I recall having conversations with two psychologists in my not too distant past, in my role as a chief manager in a large organisation, and whilst attempting to initiate change, and although they didn't know one another, they both came up with the same thought process that humans have with regards to action and inaction on any particular subject.

 

Basically, if there is something which is "immediate and certain" then we as humans will take action, HOWEVER, if this particular something is not "immediate and certain" then action will not be taken, and it won't have any degree of urgency, nor will it likely be addressed in the near future............and I see that as happening with global warming/climate change, and the longer that seeds of doubt are sown with regards to this (and also considering my last post with regards to lobbyists and interests of the big companies) then the longer it will take to do something about it.

 

There have been examples of this throughout history, and even now there are some comparisons which I could draw, although not strictly in the same vein.........in some of the Pacific islands a measles epidemic has killed over 60 people, mostly children, and this because of religious beliefs, and the fact that measles had not been recently present in those countries and therefore was not seen as "immediate and certain" i.e. no need to get vaccinated because there is no immediate danger and very little chance of contracting measles.

 

However now, because the effects are seen first hand (immediate and certain) vaccinations are being delivered throughout the whole population, even to those who had some religious push-back against it.

 

In my opinion, a lot more could be done and should be done, but all the time other interests are at play, and the human nature aspect, as I pointed out above, is also in play, then as you quite rightly point out humans could well have killed themselves off by their own inaction.
 

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Yes that's quite likely, and I recall having conversations with two psychologists in my not too distant past, in my role as a chief manager in a large organisation, and whilst attempting to initiate change, and although they didn't know one another, they both came up with the same thought process that humans have with regards to action and inaction on any particular subject.

 

Basically, if there is something which is "immediate and certain" then we as humans will take action, HOWEVER, if this particular something is not "immediate and certain" then action will not be taken, and it won't have any degree of urgency, nor will it likely be addressed in the near future............and I see that as happening with global warming/climate change, and the longer that seeds of doubt are sown with regards to this (and also considering my last post with regards to lobbyists and interests of the big companies) then the longer it will take to do something about it.

 

There have been examples of this throughout history, and even now there are some comparisons which I could draw, although not strictly in the same vein.........in some of the Pacific islands a measles epidemic has killed over 60 people, mostly children, and this because of religious beliefs, and the fact that measles had not been recently present in those countries and therefore was not seen as "immediate and certain" i.e. no need to get vaccinated because there is no immediate danger and very little chance of contracting measles.

 

However now, because the effects are seen first hand (immediate and certain) vaccinations are being delivered throughout the whole population, even to those who had some religious push-back against it.

 

In my opinion, a lot more could be done and should be done, but all the time other interests are at play, and the human nature aspect, as I pointed out above, is also in play, then as you quite rightly point out humans could well have killed themselves off by their own inaction.
 

there was a time when life was in the direction of extinguish itself on earth, until a fungi by chance

and right on time evolved to break down lignin,

and the issue has popped up once again,

this time only man can preempt extinction

that is destined to occur 2-3 million years from now

without direct intervention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Notice how small Pacific nations blame the "West" for the illusory sea level rise, but think that some cash will alleviate the situation. I say illusory as there has been no significant or apparent sea level rise in NZ over the past 55 years, while they claim the sea is actually higher in their part of the Pacific than it is on the shores of NZ. Perhaps they should borrow some of the boats the Thais used to solve the floods in Bkk a few years ago.

Solve the floods they did not, especially with boats.

On 12/21/2019 at 5:09 PM, toast1 said:

Oh dear, those 'Shrill denialists'.

 

Traitors, apostates, doubters!

 

Off to the re-education camp with them.

 

The last sentence contains a sweeping assumption.