Anger erupts at U.N. climate summit as major economies resist bold action

[marqus12]

3 hours ago, marqus12 said:

Come on Chinese, hurry up with the construction of this coffin.

We have wooden stakes in Central Europe with which YOU can finish off

these EU hyenas and this impoverished soybean and corn producer

on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

????

of course finish off economically
make peace not war ????

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO it's not a choice. If we don't voluntarily reduce our population, wars, revolution and disease will do it for us.

I'm not going to suggest anything as it's not up to me to do it. I didn't have children. The people that will suffer the consequences of overpopulation will be those born now and in the future. The next wars will probably be over water- look at what is happening on the Nile.

Ebola is also potentially going to wipe out millions.

I think we can agree that nature somehow will take care of the problem.

Happened before, it will happen again.

[Bluespunk]

“Despite the clear scientific consensus, a veritable brigade of self-proclaimed, underinformed armchair experts lurk on comment threads the world over, eager to pour scorn on climate science. Barrages of ad hominem attacks all too often await both the scientists working in climate research and journalists who communicate the research findings.” 

― David Robert Grimes

[brokenbone]

51 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

“Despite the clear scientific consensus, a veritable brigade of self-proclaimed, underinformed armchair experts lurk on comment threads the world over, eager to pour scorn on climate science. Barrages of ad hominem attacks all too often await both the scientists working in climate research and journalists who communicate the research findings.” 

― David Robert Grimes

that 'scientific consensus' itself stem from an inability to conduct and read statistics,

david grimes by his own admission took a leave from his math lessons,

naughty boy.

i suggest, as a teacher in kindergarten, that you encourage your pupils

never to skimp on math

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

that 'scientific consensus' itself stem from an inability to conduct and read statistics,

david grimes by his own admission took a leave from his math lessons,

naughty boy.

i suggest, as a teacher in kindergarten, that you encourage your pupils

never to skimp on math

Sorry, but based upon my reading of this thread, I don't feel I require, desire or could ever possible accept advice from you on how to do my job...

[elmrfudd]

Only a leftist in their quest for control would be so arrogant and self assured to think that taxing people and energy companies out of existence will somehow effect the ever changing earth climate. This is about power and control. It always has been. 

[Rimmer]

Baiting troll post removed

[brokenbone]

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Only a leftist in their quest for control would be so arrogant and self assured to think that taxing people and energy companies out of existence will somehow effect the ever changing earth climate. This is about power and control. It always has been. 

at the heart of it all is the ipcc mandate to find a link specifically between humans and climate,

the flawed reasoning is institutionalized by the mandate,

if the ipcc find no link between humans and climate, there is no reason for them to exist,

there is no reason to fund an institution that serve no purpose.

when was the last time an institution dismantled itself ?

 

only ever if the definition of the mandate is re-defined can ipcc work unbiased,

 if their mandate is to find no link between humans and climate,

the rhetoric will change literally in an instant or they will be out of pay.

 

to get any balance in the rhetoric, they would have to get paid whatever they do or dont do,

then its at least only up to their bias, not literally their livelihood,

but as it stands, they are railroaded to bias by instinct to survive.

 

ipcc had from their very formation, by how the mandate was defined,

no chance to be unbiased

[RickBradford]

21 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

This is about power and control. It always has been. 

The philosopher Alston Chase put it rather well when he wrote:

 

“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

 

That fits the climate movement like a wetsuit.

[mogandave]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

“Despite the clear scientific consensus, a veritable brigade of self-proclaimed, underinformed armchair experts lurk on comment threads the world over, eager to pour scorn on climate science. Barrages of ad hominem attacks all too often await both the scientists working in climate research and journalists who communicate the research findings.” 

― David Robert Grimes

 

And the scorn and ad hominem attacks always come from the stupid deniers!!!!

[Bluespunk]

Ah, the irony. 

[RickBradford]

28 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And the scorn and ad hominem attacks always come from the stupid deniers!!!!

I think that's fair comment, given that the only "stupid deniers" I see are the activists who simply cannot believe the simple fact, explained in the OP: Nobody is going to do anything about global warming.

 

"Never have I seen such a disconnect between what the science requires and what the climate negotiations are delivering in terms of meaningful action," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a 28-year veteran of the climate process. "Most of the world's biggest emitting countries are missing in action and resisting calls to raise their ambition."

 

It's all over bar the posturing. Not that that's going to end any time soon; there's too much money sloshing around.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I think that's fair comment, given that the only "stupid deniers" I see are the activists who simply cannot believe the simple fact, explained in the OP: Nobody is going to do anything about global warming.

 

"Never have I seen such a disconnect between what the science requires and what the climate negotiations are delivering in terms of meaningful action," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a 28-year veteran of the climate process. "Most of the world's biggest emitting countries are missing in action and resisting calls to raise their ambition."

 

It's all over bar the posturing. Not that that's going to end any time soon; there's too much money sloshing around.

Not forgetting all those lovely conferences that they can fly around the world for, at someone else's expense. Must be a great life having a well paid non real job.

[LazySlipper]

When the world actually cares what a 16 year old puppet has to say it is time to seriously start worrying. 

 

Her put them up against the wall outburst is reminiscent of Fascism more than activism.

 

She would benefit from watching Pink Floyd the Wall. I NEVER trust zealous activists no matter how old they are... and it was charisma that propulsed Hitler to his position of power...

 

Beware the charismatic and the fanatic

[bristolboy]

On 12/17/2019 at 3:28 PM, elmrfudd said:

Only a leftist in their quest for control would be so arrogant and self assured to think that taxing people and energy companies out of existence will somehow effect the ever changing earth climate. This is about power and control. It always has been. 

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "change" and "rate of change".

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

When the world actually cares what a 16 year old puppet has to say it is time to seriously start worrying.

The world doesn't care.

 

It's just the usual exaggeration by the legacy mainstream media, which is trying to convince its rapidly shrinking population of readers and viewers that Greta Thunberg is somehow important.

 

Her antics are of no serious interest to anyone who lives outside the narcissistic activist bubble.

[brokenbone]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "change" and "rate of change".

yes, the +1 degree celsius in early 1700 must have been a horrifying experience for all the species in england,

i know the horror i went through

when i landed in thailand after a long journey from the comfy scandinavia,

the HORROR, i get panic just thinking about my difficulties to adjust to thailand temperatures.

and the pace was just too fast to cope with, it went from minus 25 degree to plus 25 degree in 12 hours.

be grateful you had the sense to stay in englands tolerable climate, change is never a good thing

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

yes, the +1 degree celsius in early 1700 must have been a horrifying experience for all the species in england,

i know the horror i went through

when i landed in thailand after a long journey from the comfy scandinavia,

the HORROR, i get panic just thinking about my difficulties to adjust to thailand temperatures.

and the pace was just too fast to cope with, it went from minus 25 degree to plus 25 degree in 12 hours.

be grateful you had the sense to stay in englands tolerable climate, change is never a good thing

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

You've made an excellent point. Clearly the solution is for all of Earth's 7 billion human beings to be able travel to wherever the climate is most comfortable. 

 

[brokenbone]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You've made an excellent point. Clearly the solution is for all of Earth's 7 billion human beings to be able travel to wherever the climate is most comfortable. 

 

its not the change per say, but the rate of it all,

i was there standing in bkk thinking OMG whatever got into me ?

 

anyway, the biggest anomaly in these data

is not in industrial era, but from very late 1600 to 1750, so if you want to specify cause of anomaly, you would have to

look at other factors then co2 levels

[bristolboy]

17 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It would be a bit of a busman's holiday for them next year - the conference is scheduled to be held in Glasgow ???? .

 

That should cut the overall turnout somewhat.....

What you and I both really disapprove of in those climate activists is how they impute motives even when based on no evidence. For instance they might claim that people are only attending conferences if it's held in a choice locale. They offer absolutely no evidence for such an assertion. Those activists have no respect for facts at all.

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The world doesn't care.

 

It's just the usual exaggeration by the legacy mainstream media, which is trying to convince its rapidly shrinking population of readers and viewers that Greta Thunberg is somehow important.

 

Her antics are of no serious interest to anyone who lives outside the narcissistic activist bubble.

Another annoying trait of activists is to make assertions about public opinion without offering a trace of evidence to back it up. For instance, they will claim that public opinion about such and such a person overwhelmingly matches their own. Do they really expect rational people who base their opinions on evidence to believe such self-serving statements? You and I could certainly share a good laugh over that kind of absurdity.

 

 

[Skallywag]

Heat waves are more common, hurricanes, major flooding, air pollution.  

Strange to me with all the new tech. and medical advances in the last 30 years, our electricity and transportation methods are still based on 100+ year old technologies....Combustion of coal and oil. 
 

Anyone with a bit of chemistry background must accept that "combustion" of carbon based fuels is releasing CO2 into our atmosphere.  Every year billions more tons of CO2 released and you think there is not going to be a "reaction" to all this added CO2?  Denying it wont make it go away

 

[brokenbone]

8 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Heat waves are more common, hurricanes, major flooding, air pollution.  

Strange to me with all the new tech. and medical advances in the last 30 years, our electricity and transportation methods are still based on 100+ year old technologies....Combustion of coal and oil. 
 

Anyone with a bit of chemistry background must accept that "combustion" of carbon based fuels is releasing CO2 into our atmosphere.  Every year billions more tons of CO2 released and you think there is not going to be a "reaction" to all this added CO2?  Denying it wont make it go away

 

oh but there IS a reaction, increased biomass,

the two primary byproducts when you burn fossil fuels

are carbon dioxide and water, hands down the two most important molecules for life on earth.

only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

oh but there IS a reaction, increased biomass,

the two primary byproducts when you burn fossil fuels

are carbon dioxide and water, hands down the two most important molecules for life on earth.

only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o

Sure that makes sense. That's why the more water you put on a field the better it is. Just ask farmers thrilled that their fields have been flooded as in the American midwest.

Of course  the billions of people who depend on glacial meltwater have nothing to worry about. Just because those glaciers are receding rapidly doesn't mean the won't grow back at the last minute. Because if there's one thing that the scientifically literate believe in, it's magic! Just like the person who jumps off a skyscraper for the thrill of the fall. Because he knows that at the last minute the ground will turn into a trampoline.

And that current greening effect won't go away when those glaciers disappear because more magic!

And the increase in heat due to the greenhouse effect won't lead to more intense and more widely spread fires, as the lack of such blazes in the Arctic and Australia clearly demonstrate.

And the scientifically literate also know that rapid environmental change is great for biodiversity. Because when rapid environmental change occurs, species will adapt just as rapidly. Because, you know, even more magic!

And the increase in biomass is unreservedly a good thing. That's why when phosphates enrich (don't say "pollute" because that's a word only the scientifically illiterate use) the result is a huge increase in biomass in the form of algae. It might not be so great for other life forms, like the kind that depend on oxygen, but why should that be a concern?

And it's a good thing that the surface of the earth isn't about 70% covered with water. Because if it was, that increase in CO2 would lead to a decrease in alkalinity and have disastrous consequences for the diversity of sea life. But probably on the whole lead to a huge increase in the supply of algae. An increase in biomass! Hooray!

 

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure that makes sense. That's why the more water you put on a field the better it is. Just ask farmers thrilled that their fields have been flooded as in the American midwest.

Of course  the billions of people who depend on glacial meltwater have nothing to worry about. Just because those glaciers are receding rapidly doesn't mean the won't grow back at the last minute. Because if there's one thing that the scientifically literate believe in, it's magic! Just like the person who jumps off a skyscraper for the thrill of the fall. Because he knows that at the last minute the ground will turn into a trampoline.

And that current greening effect won't go away when those glaciers disappear because more magic!

And the increase in heat due to the greenhouse effect won't lead to more intense and more widely spread fires, as the lack of such blazes in the Arctic and Australia clearly demonstrate.

And the scientifically literate also know that rapid environmental change is great for biodiversity. Because when rapid environmental change occurs, species will adapt just as rapidly. Because, you know, even more magic!

And the increase in biomass is unreservedly a good thing. That's why when phosphates enrich (don't say "pollute" because that's a word only the scientifically illiterate use) the result is a huge increase in biomass in the form of algae. It might not be so great for other life forms, like the kind that depend on oxygen, but why should that be a concern?

And it's a good thing that the surface of the earth isn't about 70% covered with water. Because if it was, that increase in CO2 would lead to a decrease in alkalinity and have disastrous consequences for the diversity of sea life. But probably on the whole lead to a huge increase in the supply of algae. An increase in biomass! Hooray!

 

Where would you be without hyperbole?  The world is never going to be perfect for everyone, but the advantages of warming offset the negatives, and our technology is advancing at a ridiculous rate. Lets work with what we have instead tearing our clothes and covering our heads in ashes.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Where would you be without hyperbole?  The world is never going to be perfect for everyone, but the advantages of warming offset the negatives, and our technology is advancing at a ridiculous rate. Lets work with what we have instead tearing our clothes and covering our heads in ashes.

Sure, I'm the one making tendentious comments. LIke " only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o"

Odd how that ridiculous straw manstatement doesn't seem to draw your attention at all.

And then there's the case of your doublethink. What technology are you referring to as "advancing at a ridiculous rate" Because if you're talking about renewables and storage, I agree. But given your past comments, it's dubious that's what you meant.

[brokenbone]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure, I'm the one making tendentious comments. LIke " only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o"

Odd how that ridiculous straw manstatement doesn't seem to draw your attention at all.

And then there's the case of your doublethink. What technology are you referring to as "advancing at a ridiculous rate" Because if you're talking about renewables and storage, I agree. But given your past comments, it's dubious that's what you meant.

the previous rant was a bit long to comment on,

but the general thrust of your past posts

is that climate 'change too fast'

(correct me if interpreted wrong)

what this longest record of measured data graph shows is

that anomalies are tiny and the only one of them

that sort of stick out a bit is the 1690-1735 interval.

if you wish to delve into why that anomaly is,

you would have to look at other factors then changing co2 levels, or there is no logic at all in your reasoning

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the previous rant was a bit long to comment on,

but the general thrust of your past posts

is that climate 'change too fast'

(correct me if interpreted wrong)

what this longest record of measured data graph shows is

that anomalies are tiny and the only one of them

that sort of stick out a bit is the 1690-1735 interval.

if you wish to delve into why that anomaly is,

you would have to look at other factors then changing co2 levels, or there is no logic at all in your reasoning

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

 

First off, the graph you post here is of Cenral england. I'm guessing you're a little Englander. I'm mystified as to why someone would think such small region would serve as a proxy for surface global temperatures. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it does. I'm looking at the right side of that graph and it sure looks like the average temperatures are alot more consistently high than elsewhere on the graph. And it's not just me. So does that little red trend line. So, in fact the graph does show that the warming is unprecedented and has risen sharply as the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased. 

But, in fact, not only Central England, but even all of the UK don't accurately jibe with global temperature conditions. Just recently there was a huge study the results of which were published in Nature. The gist of it was that out of the last 2000 years it is only beginning in the 20th century that temperatures rose nearly everywhere at the same time.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

 "This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures⁵, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

[brokenbone]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, the graph you post here is of Cenral england. I'm guessing you're a little Englander. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why someone would think such small region reflects global conditions. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it does. I'm looking at the right side of that graph and it sure looks like the average temperatures are alot more consistently high than elsewhere on the graph. So, in fact the graph does show that the warming is unprecedented and has risen sharply as the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased. 

But, in fact, not only Central England, but even all of the UK don't accurately jibe with global temperature conditions. Just recently there was a huge study the results of which were published in Nature. The gist of it was that out of the last 2000 years it is only beginning in the 20th century that temperatures rose nearly everywhere at the same time.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

 "This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures⁵, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

the reason i picked england data was its the longest measured data in the world,

it shows no upwards or downward curvature indicating no additional component in climate has been added since 1659,

the only anomaly in the graph is in the 1690-1740 interval.

 

there arent many places in the world with long term measured data,

we are much better off sticking with those we got to get a trend then to guess

what it was before, add new stations now,

and then speculate over trend and causes.

in addition to that, some stations have become corrupted due to man made constructions, asphalt and buildings,

that has shown to increase 5 degree to readings

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the reason i picked england data was its the longest measured data in the world,

it shows no upwards or downward curvature indicating no additional component in climate has been added since 1659,

the only anomaly in the graph is in the 1690-1740 interval

As I pointed out even if the graph accurately reflected global temperatures, just a glance at it would demonstrate the absurdity of your contention. And if that isn't enough, there is the red trendline. And finally, as the Nature article shows, in 2000 years, it's only beginning in the 20th century that almost all the globe is warming at the same time.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As I pointed out even if the graph accurately reflected global temperatures, just a glance at it would demonstrate the absurdity of your contention. And if that isn't enough, there is the red trendline. And finally, as the Nature article shows, in 2000 years, it's only beginning in the 20th century that almost all the globe is warming at the same time.

1[ what absurdity ?

2] what trend ? that it its slowly increasing temperature

since the peak of the minor ice age ?

in a steady straight line i may add, there is no change

in rate since the recording started hundreds of years ago,

the only anomaly in that recovery from the minor ice age

is in the 1690-1740 interval

3] you are not going to find measured data anywhere on the planet going back 2000 years, england is your best bet and its less then 400 years,

other places with long term record of quality stations

is rest of west europe, usa, south west australia