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

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Tackling climate change is a benefit for humanity.

At last a point on which we can fundamentally disagree.

 

I would say that tackling climate change - the way it is being done now - is a benefit for insurance companies, banks, organized crime, make-work bureaucrats and an assortment of tawdry climate hustlers ranging from the Wailing Naomis (Oreskes & Klein) over to that ludicrous old buffoon Michael "Piltdown" Mann.

 

Benefit to them: huge. Benefit to humanity: zero, tending minus.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

At last a point on which we can fundamentally disagree.

 

I would say that tackling climate change - the way it is being done now - is a benefit for insurance companies, banks, organized crime, make-work bureaucrats and an assortment of tawdry climate hustlers ranging from the Wailing Naomis (Oreskes & Klein) over to that ludicrous old buffoon Michael "Piltdown" Mann.

 

Benefit to them: huge. Benefit to humanity: zero, tending minus.

You say s lot of things.

 

As demonstrated, usually a great deal of invective and unsubstantiated remarks about the people working to combat climate change.

 

 

[BritManToo]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You say s lot of things.

 

As demonstrated, usually a great deal of invective and unsubstantiated remarks about the people working to combat climate change.

 

 

There's nobody combating climate change (if it even exists).

But there are people making a lot of money from pretending to care while, driving hummers, flying in private jets and buying beach houses.

 

as you're a believer,

How are you doing your bit to help Chomper old chap?

Garden full of solar panels, refusing to fly or drive, not using air-con ...... give us a hint?

Edited March 29, 2021 by BritManToo

[RickBradford]

I think I shall begin a Be Nice to Greta week. She may be an appalling nincompoop, and easily manipulated, but she's probably the only prominent person on the planet who believes that climate change is a problem that can and must be solved. She probably really does worry about planet Earth, and the people on it.

 

This is not the case with other prominent figures in the debate. Take the case of Naomi Oreskes, the elder partner in the Wailing Naomis, who got rich from a 2010 book called Merchants of Doubt about climate change.

 

Her work was so bad that even Tom Wigley, one of the perps in the Climategate scandal, was moved to write “Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.” When the Climategate people, who know all about low standards, can't take your output seriously, then it's time to go do something else, like tending bar.

 

A rather well-known figure in climate circles is one William M. Connolley, an indefatigable editor of Wikipedia pages to push the climate agenda. Even he drew the line at Oreskes, calling her work "silly" and "shoddy", and that he "eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong."

 

Not that this deterred Oreskes. Rather, as is common in Green/Left circles, the worse you are, the higher you fly, and she popped up in 2015 to write an introduction to the Pope's encyclical on global warming, with comments which likened climate change to a "Nazi atomic bomb" and other illuminating ideas, such as prosecuting climate change skeptics under racketeering laws.

 

And let's not get started on Michael "Piltdown" Mann, who got rich off his silly Hockey Stick. He  could have shown the IPCC a croquet mallet and they would still have bought it ....

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I think I shall begin a Be Nice to Greta week. She may be an appalling nincompoop, and easily manipulated, but she's probably the only prominent person on the planet who believes that climate change is a problem that can and must be solved. She probably really does worry about planet Earth, and the people on it.

 

This is not the case with other prominent figures in the debate. Take the case of Naomi Oreskes, the elder partner in the Wailing Naomis, who got rich from a 2010 book called Merchants of Doubt about climate change.

 

Her work was so bad that even Tom Wigley, one of the perps in the Climategate scandal, was moved to write “Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.” When the Climategate people, who know all about low standards, can't take your output seriously, then it's time to go do something else, like tending bar.

 

A rather well-known figure in climate circles is one William M. Connolley, an indefatigable editor of Wikipedia pages to push the climate agenda. Even he drew the line at Oreskes, calling her work "silly" and "shoddy", and that he "eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong."

 

Not that this deterred Oreskes. Rather, as is common in Green/Left circles, the worse you are, the higher you fly, and she popped up in 2015 to write an introduction to the Pope's encyclical on global warming, with comments which likened climate change to a "Nazi atomic bomb" and other illuminating ideas, such as prosecuting climate change skeptics under racketeering laws.

 

And let's not get started on Michael "Piltdown" Mann, who got rich off his silly Hockey Stick. He  could have shown the IPCC a croquet mallet and they would still have bought it ....

More of the same same.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

There's nobody combating climate change (if it even exists).

But there are people making a lot of money from pretending to care while, driving hummers, flying in private jets and buying beach houses.

 

as you're a believer,

How are you doing your bit to help Chomper old chap?

Garden full of solar panels, refusing to fly or drive, not using air-con ...... give us a hint?

Oh look, make me the subject of the discussion.

 

Here’s a hint:

 

Don’t bother trying.

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More of the same same.

Thanks for your interest! Who shall I talk about next? Piltdown? Naomi Klein? Schellhuber? They're all equally amusing.

Edited March 29, 2021 by RickBradford

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Thanks for your interest! Who shall I talk about next? Piltdown? Naomi Klein? Schellhuber? They're all equally amusing.

The subject of the thread might be a good place to find some hints.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

Putting aside the economic consequences of climate change there are other equally worrying outcomes; impacts on global food supplies, diminishing supplies of fresh water, conflict over fresh water, food and agriculturally productive land and inevitably population migrations.

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The subject of the thread my be a good place to find some hints.

Well, since the lead author of the report was the University of East Anglia, the home of the Climategate scandal, it may bring up some painful memories, but it's worth considering.

 

Still, the interminable computer models and simulations which underlie these reports are very tedious and unreliable and so models that build on models on top of other models are even worse.

 

At least the authors admit it.

 

"There are caveats. There are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors, so these are excluded from our model (Oswald and Stern, 2019). Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative. Moreover, our results should be understood as scenario-based simulations rather than predictions. We do not comment on the relative probabilities of any given warming scenario playing out in practice."

 

In other words, don't blame us if the whole thing is rubbish.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I shouldn't think solar power is the most effective green power source for New Zealand - especially the south island . It isn't known as the land of the long white cloud for nothing

On the other hand it's ideal for hydro, but when the government won't allow dams to be built it's a non starter.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside the economic consequences of climate change there are other equally worrying outcomes; impacts on global food supplies, diminishing supplies of fresh water, conflict over fresh water, food and agriculturally productive land and inevitably population migrations.

In New South Wales, farmers were looking forward to their best crop in years, following a long drought, only to see it all washed away by floods.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, since the lead author of the report was the University of East Anglia, the home of the Climategate scandal, it may bring up some painful memories, but it's worth considering.

 

Still, the interminable computer models and simulations which underlie these reports are very tedious and unreliable and so models that build on models on top of other models are even worse.

 

At least the authors admit it.

 

"There are caveats. There are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors, so these are excluded from our model (Oswald and Stern, 2019). Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative. Moreover, our results should be understood as scenario-based simulations rather than predictions. We do not comment on the relative probabilities of any given warming scenario playing out in practice."

 

In other words, don't blame us if the whole thing is rubbish.

So you don’t understand the statement on caveats.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside the economic consequences of climate change there are other equally worrying outcomes; impacts on global food supplies, diminishing supplies of fresh water, conflict over fresh water, food and agriculturally productive land and inevitably population migrations.

 

 

 

All of which would be avoided if people stopped populating the planet beyond it's capacity to feed and water.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

At least the authors admit it.

 

"There are caveats. There are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors, so these are excluded from our model (Oswald and Stern, 2019). Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative. Moreover, our results should be understood as scenario-based simulations rather than predictions. We do not comment on the relative probabilities of any given warming scenario playing out in practice."

 

In other words, don't blame us if the whole thing is rubbish.

It's not a zero sum game. The fact that climate models can't accurately predict outcomes does not leave open the possibility that it is all fake.

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

All of which would be avoided if people stopped populating the planet beyond it's capacity to feed and water.

You mean those other people?!

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

and inevitably population migrations.

Ah yes, the "climate refugees". 

 

Let's not forget that the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010, then when the real total turned out to be zero, tried to disappear their prediction, but, lacking technical skill, left it in a cache for all to see.

 

Not to worry, though, the date has been redefined. Now it's 2050, according to the Organization for World Peace (good luck with that), and the number of "climate refugees" has risen to 1 billion.

 

I think that's a better estimate. Always put the date so far ahead as to be meaningless.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

It's not a zero sum game. The fact that climate models can't accuratly predict outcomes does not leave open the possibility that it is all <deleted>.

If someone claimed to have a way to become a billionaire by using a computer program they had developed, and were selling it, but they couldn't guarantee that by using it one would actually become a billionaire, how many people would buy it?

If the boffins can't prove that their climate models actually work, why should I believe them?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You mean those other people?!

I have no children.

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The fact that climate models can't accurately predict outcomes does not leave open the possibility that it is all fake.

Correct. But is also doesn't mean it is true, or anything we should rely on.

 

Yet Reuters is essentially presenting it as received wisdom, without providing a skerrick of counter-argument from people who may hold different views.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If someone claimed to have a way to become a billionaire by using a computer program they had developed, and were selling it, but they couldn't guarantee that by using it one would actually become a billionaire, how many people would buy it?

If the boffins can't prove that their climate models actually work, why should I believe them?

 

They do work, they are just not totally accurate. If the met bureau says there's a 90% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, they were not wrong.

[ozimoron]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Correct. But is also doesn't mean it is true, or anything we should rely on.

 

Yet Reuters is essentially presenting it as received wisdom, without providing a skerrick of counter-argument from people who may hold different views.

 

Nothing wrong with a counter argument. I've just never seen one in relation to climate change which offers any evidence that it's not real, other than pointing to uncertainties and vagaries in the evidence for climate change.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

If the met bureau says there's a 90% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, they were not wrong.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be prepared to pay them for future advice, which is what the climate modellers demand.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Correct. But is also doesn't mean it is true, or anything we should rely on.

 

Yet Reuters is essentially presenting it as received wisdom, without providing a skerrick of counter-argument from people who may hold different views.

Your objection to the climate change model was the caveat that excluded ‘social and political factors’ from which you disregard the whole model.

 

It speaks to a lack of the most basic understanding of what you are criticizing.

[Yellowtail]

It interesting that since we were told back in the '70s that everyone would starve to death because of overpopulation, the world population has about doubled and as a percentage of the population,  fewer people are starving today than in the history of the world. 

 

Does it surprise anyone how the left hats Monsanto and big Ag?

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Nothing wrong with a counter argument. I've just never seen one in relation to climate change which offers any evidence that it's not real, other than pointing to uncertainties and vagaries in the evidence for climate change.

I think you may have joined the discussion rather late.

 

Nobody here is suggesting that climate change is not real, as far as I know. The discussion generally has moved on from there on to whether it is likely to be serious, and what might be the best steps to take.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

They do work, they are just not totally accurate. If the met bureau says there's a 90% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, they were not wrong.

LOL. In the 60s I was told all the oil on the planet would be used up in 20 years- far as I know they are still producing loads of the stuff.

When they claim the sea level is rising, and I can see with my own eyes that it's not, why should I believe them about the other claims they make?

 

I do believe that planet earth is in a crisis and humanity will likely be extinct in a century or two, but IMO that's because we are polluting the oceans to death, and overpopulating the world to the point we can't grow enough food, not because it's getting hotter.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be prepared to pay them for future advice, which is what the climate modellers demand.

Wrong.

 

Climate change is a risk, to economies and societies.

 

The climate change modelers are working to determine the boundaries of that risk.

 

You might not want to pay them but the people who need to set policies to address the risks are.

 

They are not ‘demanding to be paid’ they are paid because there is a demand for their work.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I think you may have joined the discussion rather late.

 

Nobody here is suggesting that climate change is not real, as far as I know. The discussion generally has moved on from there on to whether it is likely to be serious, and what might be the best steps to take.

Could the melting of glaciers in Nepal or the the reduction in land ice in the antarctic or the melting of Ice in Greenland not be serious? Can record fires, worse each year than the last not be serious. Can record temperatures in 9 of ten years not be serious?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I think you may have joined the discussion rather late.

 

Nobody here is suggesting that climate change is not real, as far as I know. The discussion generally has moved on from there on to whether it is likely to be serious, and what might be the best steps to take.

Climate change is certainly happening, as the south island of NZ has seen rising snow levels since the 70s, but it's not necessarily getting a lot hotter. The past summer was cooler than the previous one and I even had the heater on around Christmas for a couple of nights, which hasn't happened in my lifetime that I can remember.