Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yes, the "refugees" on the US southern boarder are a result of climate change. Political and economic climates have changed such that they are coming in record numbers.

Thanks for sharing your willful ignorance with us. Comments like yours are the equivalent of a 5 years putting his fingers in his ears and mumbling to himself to drown out something he doesn't want to hear.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Odd then that it isn't any warmer, the seas haven't risen and even the ozone hole has disappeared.

climate disasters were predicted in the 1970s and earlier, not one of them happened ...... but maybe next year?

 

There's always 10 years left to save the planet ..........

 

I don't know if it was you. but someone on this thread made the same claim and i provided information about how satellite telemetry is providing extraordinarily  accurate information about sea level rise. And of course your assertion that it isn't getting any warmer is massively false. But if your position in effect says that the overwhelming amount of evidence and research is a fake, then there's no point in having a discussion with you. 

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Utter nonsense.

 

There are plenty of mathematical models running on real time data.

 

I’m more than a little surprised that somebody who claims to have read a lot of scientific papers is unaware of that fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not surprised he makes that claim. But considering how oblivious he is to so much of the latest research, I would be surprised if anyone believed it. I posted somewhere in this thread about how data gathering capablities have gotten so powerful, that scientists are now able to directly measure the energy balance of planet earth.

I'll post it here again for him and like-minded parties to ignore again.

 

Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance

A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

Edited March 30, 2021 by placeholder

[ozimoron]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Odd then that it isn't any warmer, the seas haven't risen and even the ozone hole has disappeared.

 

Two completely unrelated things making what argument? Where is your evidence that sea levels aren't rising? There is an abundance of evidence that it is.

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Two completely unrelated things making what argument? Where is your evidence that sea levels aren't rising? There is an abundance of evidence that it is.

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

I think he published his research in The Journal of Strolls on the Beach

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Where is your evidence that sea levels aren't rising?

My house on the beach in Shoreham is still there.

Photos of the tide line on the pier are still the same.

Both from 60 years back.

 

Historical photos found on the internet, show exactly the same, no change.

Holland hasn't flooded, the Maldives are still there, politicians are still buying expensive beach front property, banks are still issuing 25 year mortgages on expensive beach front property.

 

where is your evidence sea levels are rising?

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My house on the beach in Shoreham is still there.

Photos of the tide line on the pier are still the same.

Both from 60 years back.

 

Historical photos found on the internet, show exactly the same, no change.

Holland hasn't flooded, the Maldives are still there, politicians are still buying expensive beach front property, banks are still issuing 25 year mortgages on expensive beach front property.

 

where is your evidence sea levels are rising?

 

I just gave it to you. You obviously read nothing on the subject and the best you can do is serve up anecdotal evidence.

 

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

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

 

https://coastadapt.com.au/climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-australian-region

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by ozimoron

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My house on the beach in Shoreham is still there.

Photos of the tide line on the pier are still the same.

Both from 60 years back.

 

Historical photos found on the internet, show exactly the same, no change.

Holland hasn't flooded, the Maldives are still there, politicians are still buying expensive beach front property, banks are still issuing 25 year mortgages on expensive beach front property.

 

where is your evidence sea levels are rising?

Don’t think Holland and Maldives are sharing your method on assessing sea level based on your house. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-maldives-idUSKBN1ZG0XS

 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7079992.pdf

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I just gave it to you. You obviously read nothing on the subject and the best you can do is serve up anecdotal evidence.

 

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

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

 

https://coastadapt.com.au/climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-australian-region

 

 

I  prefer photographic evidence, as opposed to predictions from woke organisations with profits and funding to be collected and political points to make.

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Don’t think Holland and Maldives are sharing your method on assessing sea level based on your house. 
 

 

He doesn't have a cogent argument, he's simply trolling.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My house on the beach in Shoreham is still there.

Photos of the tide line on the pier are still the same.

Both from 60 years back.

 

Historical photos found on the internet, show exactly the same, no change.

Holland hasn't flooded, the Maldives are still there, politicians are still buying expensive beach front property, banks are still issuing 25 year mortgages on expensive beach front property.

 

where is your evidence sea levels are rising?

As I thought. You do publish in the Journal of Strolls on the Beach. 

 

In fact, the evidence comes from 2 basic databases. The 2nd satellites via telemetry which has been an ongoing project since the 1990's.

"Mean annual sea levels at 247 tide-gauge stations of the world exhibit a general rise of relative sea level of about 3 mm/year during the past 40 years. In contrast, general uplift of the land is typical of high northern latitudes, where unloading of the crust by melt of Pleistocene ice sheets is significant. Erratic movements are typical of belts having crustal overthrusting and active volcanism. Short-term(I5 and 10-year) records reveal recent changes in rates, but such short time spans may be so influenced by climatic cycles that identification of new trends is difficult, especially with the existing poor distribution and reporting of tide-gauge data."

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/77/12/6968.full.pdf

Taking information from both tidal records and satellites into consideration, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that sea level rose around 0.07 inches (1.7 millimeters) per year between 1901 and 2010 and that between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher, more like 0.13 inches (3.2 mm) per year.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/reading-between-tides-200-years-measuring-global-sea-level

 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I  prefer photographic evidence, as opposed from predictions from woke organisations with profits to make and a political points to make.

 

Meaning you feel free to label any organisation which doesn't provide you with confirmation bias as corrupted.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I  prefer photographic evidence, as opposed from predictions from woke organisations with profits to make and a political points to make.

What don't you understand about the fact that these aren't predictions. We also have satellite telemetry readings to confirm the rise over the last 30 years. And as pointed out above, tidal records have been compiled and also show a rise.

[placeholder]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Meaning you feel free to label any organisation which doesn't provide you with confirmation bias as corrupted.

Exactly. So many of denialist observations consist of mud slinging. That and just refusing to look at the evidence.

[BritManToo]

Just now, ozimoron said:

He doesn't have a cogent argument, he's simply trolling.

While you have absolutely no evidence of any kind.

it's really hard to refute any fantasy, when that fantasy is predicted to happen in the future, and when that prediction fails to happen, the date just gets moved on.

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

While you have absolutely no evidence of any kind.

it's really hard to refute any fantasy, when that fantasy is predicted to happen in the future, and when that prediction fails to  happen, the date just gets moved on.

 

What did I just quote for you? A ham sandwich?

[fredwiggy]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

While you have absolutely no evidence of any kind.

it's really hard to refute any fantasy, when that fantasy is predicted to happen in the future, and when that prediction fails to  happen, the date just gets moved on.

I'm pretty sure NOAA, who look over the oceans and their health, are doing the research needed to help keep them healthy.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

from your link .......

'Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003

In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.

But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?

 

Mann refused to submit his data to the court, so they could not prove 'criminal fraud'.

Yes, Mann got his pants yanked down publicly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court threw out his case and awarded full legal costs to his opponent. 

 

Yet, there are still members of the Green/Left who to this day defend "Piltdown" Mann and his work, a stance which falls under the head of defending the indefensible.

 

Dealing with the Green/Left is like conversing with the Millerites, or Harold Camping. They are so invested in their pet ideologies that they cannot consider updating their worldview in the light of new information, something which most humans, and even some birds, are capable of doing.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

While you have absolutely no evidence of any kind.

it's really hard to refute any fantasy, when that fantasy is predicted to happen in the future, and when that prediction fails to  happen, the date just gets moved on.

And once again ignoring that fact that there's plenty of evidence that the climate is warming and seal levels are rising.  You're consused. You're alleging that disastrous  predictions about what will happen in the future have been wrong. Mostly that's just cherry picking. But as I pointed out to someone or other, if someone stops eating, by your logic up until the day they die, predictions that they will die if they don't start to eat again, are just alarmist.

Scientists haven't just predicted that temperatures will rise in the future. Temperatures already have risen and are rising. Scientists haven't just predicted that sea levels will rise. Sea levels have already risen and will rise more.

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, Mann got his pants yanked down publicly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court threw out his case and awarded full legal costs to his opponent.

The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead, the case was dismissed due to delay, for which Mann and his legal team were held responsible

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, Mann got his pants yanked down publicly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court threw out his case and awarded full legal costs to his opponent. 

 

Yet, there are still members of the Green/Left who to this day defend "Piltdown" Mann and his work, a stance which falls under the head of defending the indefensible.

 

Dealing with the Green/Left is like conversing with the Millerites, or Harold Camping. They are so invested in their pet ideologies that they cannot consider updating their worldview in the light of new information, something which most humans, and even some birds, are capable of doing.

More evidence of the false and misleading "evidence" you consistently produce. What you failed to note was that he lost because the judge ruled against Mann on the grounds that there had been too much delay. Nothing at all about the validity of his research or the substance of Ball's allegations. It had nothing to do with the validity of his evidence. Stop telling falsehoods.

http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

 

What you also fail to note was that the institute that hosted Ball for the interview acknowledged that the interview was unethical. 

Michael E. Mann took climate change deniers to court. They apologized.

In 2011, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann sued a Canadian think tank that published an interview suggesting his work on climate change was fraud.

Eight years later, the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy — which often promotes climate change denial — apologized Friday and wiped the inflammatory interview from its website.

"Although the Frontier Centre for Public Policy still does not see eye to eye with Mr. Mann on the subject of global warming and climate change, we now accept that it was wrong to publish allegations by others that Mr. Mann did not comply with ethical standards..." the think tank wrote in part.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06/13/news/michael-e-mann-took-climate-change-deniers-court-they-apologized

 

 

Also, the Sunday Times of London was forced to recant its story about "Climategate".  I guess you failed to run across that bit of information despite the massive amount of research that you consume.

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

Edited March 30, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead, the case was dismissed due to delay, for which Mann and his legal team were held responsible

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

You beat me to it. But this is typical of the way Rick_Bradford and pretty much the whole denialist movement operates. When they're not outright lying, their output is composed of half-truths, innuendos and slander and libel. What makes this especially bizarre is that he objects to  debunkers who call him and like minded people denialist. But he himself has no problem calling people he disagrees with "morons." and such.

Edited March 30, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

He doesn't have a cogent argument, he's simply trolling.

It takes virtually no effort to make things up and propose preposterous criteria. Show them to false or irrational takes some effort. Kind of like unconventional warfare. Only in this case the weapons of attack are falsehoods.

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, Mann got his pants yanked down publicly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court threw out his case and awarded full legal costs to his opponent. 

 

Yet, there are still members of the Green/Left who to this day defend "Piltdown" Mann and his work, a stance which falls under the head of defending the indefensible.

 

Dealing with the Green/Left is like conversing with the Millerites, or Harold Camping. They are so invested in their pet ideologies that they cannot consider updating their worldview in the light of new information, something which most humans, and even some birds, are capable of doing.

More of the same same.

 

Got anything to refute data records on sea levels?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More of the same same.

 

Got anything to refute data records on sea levels?

 

None of the deniers do. The jury is not out on climate change which was their mainstay argument for years. They prefer to denigrate scientific organizations with jargon epithets like "woke organizations" and proffer anecdotal evidence like happy snaps of their beach houses as proof of something. What is always completely absent is links to peer reviewed scientific studies involving empirical data. It takes an almost religious disregard for facts to be an anthropomorphic climate change denier these days. I'm not sure what they get out of it but you can almost always sheet climate change denial down to having a vested interest (a job) in the fossil fuel industry or residence in a country heavily reliant on the fossil fuel industry and English speaking (Murdoch press misinformation).

[BritManToo]

Just now, ozimoron said:

The jury is not out on climate change which was their mainstay argument for years.

the jury is certainly out on Mann and his hockey stick, and he lost and had to pay all costs.

it was either incompetence or fraud, but they couldn't prove criminal fraud  as he refused to provide his original data (if there was any).

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

the jury is certainly out on Mann and his hockey stick, and he lost and had to pay all costs.

it was either incompetence or fraud, but they couldn't prove criminal fraud  as he refused to provide his original data (if there was any).

 

Mann is not climate change. He is one person among tens of thousands who assert that it is real and is a problem.

[BritManToo]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you failed to note was that he lost because the judge ruled against Mann on the grounds that there had been too much delay.

You don't think 8 years of him not providing his original data (if he ever had any) was accidental?

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Mann is not climate change. He is one person among tens of thousands who assert that it is real and is a problem.

Yeah, but you all loved him long time.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

You don't think 8 years of him not providing his original data (if he ever had any) was accidental?

 

OK, for arguments sake, lets concede that Michael Mann is a fraud. What about every scientific organization and academic institution in the world which studies the subject?