Three new reports from the United Nations paint a grim picture of what's to come in the near future as the world falls short in mobilizing against climate change. According to the reports, nations are failing to create and act on sufficient plans to reduce warming as global greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise — a combination that is putting the planet on track to hit nearly 3 degrees Celsius of warming within less than 80 years. 

 

The U.N. issued the reports on Wednesday and Thursday providing details on the state of the planet.

 

(more)

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-united-nations-global-warming-emissions-human-suffering/

 

 

Too many promises not being met.

 

Even those promises are probably not enough to stop climate disasters becoming more frequent. 
 

Getting to the point of no return.  

IMO the real risk is from overpopulation, not climate change.

If the population had not increased from less than 3 billion to 8 billion and increasing in my lifetime, would we be facing the same problems?

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=world+population+1950s

The world's population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to around 7.3 billion in 2015, and is expected to continue to rise until 2050/2100 under most UN projection variants.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Too many promises not being met.

 

Even those promises are probably not enough to stop climate disasters becoming more frequent. 
 

Getting to the point of no return.  

Long past the point of no return IMO. Forcing us to drive electric cars ain't going to fix it either.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Long past the point of no return IMO. Forcing us to drive electric cars ain't going to fix it either.

You are not being forced to drive an electric car.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real risk is from overpopulation, not climate change.

If the population had not increased from less than 3 billion to 8 billion and increasing in my lifetime, would we be facing the same problems?

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=world+population+1950s

The world's population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to around 7.3 billion in 2015, and is expected to continue to rise until 2050/2100 under most UN projection variants.

Not all humans pollute to the same degree.

 

Therefore, following your Malthusian arguments, perhaps we need hit the big nail and get rid of the big polluters first.

 

Or perhaps its some others there are too many of?

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not all humans pollute to the same degree.

 

Therefore, following your Malthusian arguments, perhaps we need hit the big nail and get rid of the big polluters first.

 

Or perhaps its some others there are too many of?

It's ironic the biggest climate alarmists and virtue signallers are also the biggest personal polluters. It tends to undermine the message being put out, and leads me to question the sincerity of this whole global warming being caused by man making more of the already plentiful and necessary chemical compound CO2 narrative which can be fixed by more taxing. Remember that climate conference (was it Davos?) where hundreds of world leaders and the business elite all flew in on private jets, while some(such as the man formerly known as Prince Harry told regular working stiffs they should not be taking holidays cuz climate duh).

 

I would be more worried about this particular apocalyptic warning if the climate change folks hadn't been saying the same thing for 30 years or more.

 

I can't remember how many times we have been told that there is only 5 years, or 10 years, or 18 months to "save the planet", whatever that means.

 

Anyway, despite the warnings from climate experts like Prince Charles, Bono and Leonardo di Caprio, nothing can be done given that neither China nor India is going to rein in their CO2 emissions until they are good and ready.

There’s two parts to this thread.

 

Global warming and human suffering.

 

Oddly, those who argue against tackling the global warming, or that it can even be tackled, also argue against addressing the human suffering.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I would be more worried about this particular apocalyptic warning if the climate change folks hadn't been saying the same thing for 30 years or more.

 

I can't remember how many times we have been told that there is only 5 years, or 10 years, or 18 months to "save the planet", whatever that means.

 

Anyway, despite the warnings from climate experts like Prince Charles, Bono and Leonardo di Caprio, nothing can be done given that neither China nor India is going to rein in their CO2 emissions until they are good and ready.

 I don't know what "climate change folks" you're referring to, but the only ones whose opinions I'm interested in are not Prince Charles, Bono or Leonardo de Caprio, but actual climatologists. And what do you think their overwhelming consensus is?

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

 

 

As for "nothing can be done given that neither China nor India is going to rein in their CO2 emissions until they are good and ready."

 

Defying expectations, CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel combustion are set to grow in 2022 by only a fraction of last year’s big increase

Thanks to record deployment of renewables and EVs, the CO2 intensity of the world’s energy supply is improving again after worsening in 2021 when the economy rebounded sharply

https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase

An "overwhelming consensus" is a weakness, not a strength.

 

Kim Jong-Un struggles to get 99.9% of the vote even with the methods at his disposal.

 

In a subject as complex as climate science, there is bound to be a wide measure of disagreement among honest scientists so I think it's entirely reasonable to dismiss a climate consensus of 99.9% as ludicrous. I am sure that some independent thinkers have already taken this absurd consensus figure to task, but I'm not going to look for it.

 

I've occasionally observed that some of the prominent climate denialists or those who just have the attitude that there's no point trying to change things are often those who have already lived their lives, have no children or grandchildren and just don't care about the future.

 

Then there's those that feel it may already be too late but surely its our duty as a human race to attempt to preserve the future. Future generations deserve good ancestors right.

 

 

7 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

An "overwhelming consensus" is a weakness, not a strength.

 

Kim Jong-Un struggles to get 99.9% of the vote even with the methods at his disposal.

 

In a subject as complex as climate science, there is bound to be a wide measure of disagreement among honest scientists so I think it's entirely reasonable to dismiss a climate consensus of 99.9% as ludicrous. I am sure that some independent thinkers have already taken this absurd consensus figure to task, but I'm not going to look for it.

One of the big lies of climate science denialists is that climate science is very complex. Actually the basic thesis that greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a very simple one. It was put forth in a scientific formulation by a Japanese scientist in 1966. He had comparatively very primitive computers to rely on. And his predictions have been born out. For which he won the Nobel Prize.

 

The only way your comment about the consensus of climatologist would be possible is if there were some kind of conspiracy. Human caused climate change is as established a scientific theory as any theory can be. At this point it's like denying the predictive ability of Newtonian physics.

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

One of the big lies of climate science denialists is that climate science is very complex. Actually the basic thesis that greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a very simple one. It was put forth in a scientific formulation by a Japanese scientist in 1966. He had comparatively very primitive computers to rely on. And his predictions have been born out. For which he won the Nobel Prize.

The only way your comment about the consensus of climatologist would be possible is if there were some kind of conspiracy. Human caused climate change is as established a scientific theory as any theory can be. At this point it's like denying the predictive ability of Newtonian physics.

The last sentence of that post has been demonstrably proved to be wrong, and continues to be so, on a weekly basis.

 

What happened to all that Arctic ice that was supposed to be gone by 2012, the snow that was supposed to be "a thing of the past" in the UK, all those Pacific island nations that were supposed to have vanished, those 1 billion climate refugees the UN warned us about?

 

They've been wrong and wrong again, wrong every time, almost with Newtonian precision.

 

Look, there's so much wrong with the mainstream climate narrative that it would take a book or two (and has) to document even a part of it.

 

7 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

The last sentence of that post has been demonstrably proved to be wrong, and continues to be so, on a weekly basis.

 

What happened to all that Arctic ice that was supposed to be gone by 2012, the snow that was supposed to be "a thing of the past" in the UK, all those Pacific island nations that were supposed to have vanished, those 1 billion climate refugees the UN warned us about?

 

They've been wrong and wrong again, wrong every time, almost with Newtonian precision.

 

Look, there's so much wrong with the mainstream climate narrative that it would take a book or two (and has) to document even a part of it.

 

Who is they? Climatologist? You got some research papers to cite to back up your claim that this is what climatologists were predicting? You've got nothing like the usual garbage. And I guess this is one case where recycling garbage is not a good thing.

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

I would be more worried about this particular apocalyptic warning if the climate change folks hadn't been saying the same thing for 30 years or more.

Climate change, is the Politically Correct term a US ad agency/consulting/public relations firm came up with. To help the bad press oil companies were getting about it. The real term is Global Warming.  After thirty years of "sanitizing it"  for a snowflake world, the original term can be used again. Global warming is not only happening right now, it is accelerating. All those predictions; in twenty years ... in fifty years blah blah blah. You can cut them in half and that new figure is an overestimate.

 

I had hoped I would spend my remaining years traveling, drinking, just tottering off into the sunset, as old people are supposed to do. I would not have to deal with any of this warming stuff as I would be done planted by then. Wrong Again. I will have to deal with it, I am already dealing with it. garf.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 I don't know what "climate change folks" you're referring to, but the only ones whose opinions I'm interested in are not Prince Charles, Bono or Leonardo de Caprio, but actual climatologists. And what do you think their overwhelming consensus is?

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

 

 

As for "nothing can be done given that neither China nor India is going to rein in their CO2 emissions until they are good and ready."

 

Defying expectations, CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel combustion are set to grow in 2022 by only a fraction of last year’s big increase

Thanks to record deployment of renewables and EVs, the CO2 intensity of the world’s energy supply is improving again after worsening in 2021 when the economy rebounded sharply

https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase

I'd be a lot more convinced about it if world "leaders" did more about the continuing and increasing destruction of the Amazonian rain forest.

That they are apparently doing sod all about it is in my mind evidence that it's all a big scam to increase taxes.

Any attempt to stop China burning coal?

Any attempt to stop India polluting?

Don't think so.

 

Is climate changing- of course. Always has, always will.

Can we do anything to stop it changing- doubt it.

 

Even if we all stopped using any fossil fuel at all, would it make any difference in the next 25 years- doubt it. Would that even be possible in the next few decades- doubt it.

If humans did cause it, it took 300 years or so to do so, and does anyone think it could be changed back to 300 years ago?

 

I've never heard anyone say what they want to happen. Do they want to keep it like "now", or 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc?

Plenty extreme weather events in all mankind's history, so knowing which idyllic time we are aiming for might be helpful.

7 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

The last sentence of that post has been demonstrably proved to be wrong, and continues to be so, on a weekly basis.

 

What happened to all that Arctic ice that was supposed to be gone by 2012, the snow that was supposed to be "a thing of the past" in the UK, all those Pacific island nations that were supposed to have vanished, those 1 billion climate refugees the UN warned us about?

 

They've been wrong and wrong again, wrong every time, almost with Newtonian precision.

 

Look, there's so much wrong with the mainstream climate narrative that it would take a book or two (and has) to document even a part of it.

 

Wheres all the water coming from then?

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

I've occasionally observed that some of the prominent climate denialists or those who just have the attitude that there's no point trying to change things are often those who have already lived their lives, have no children or grandchildren and just don't care about the future.

 

Then there's those that feel it may already be too late but surely its our duty as a human race to attempt to preserve the future. Future generations deserve good ancestors right.

 

 

I've occasionally observed that those with children are biggest local polluters, driving huge cars with massive engines to school so the little darlings don't have to walk or take the bus.

I've occasionally observed that those who attend climate conferences like to use an extraordinary amount of jet fuel shuttling hundreds of participants to luxury resorts to emit loads of hot air.

I've occasionally observed that those that like to pontificate about how the common man should cut back on their lifestyle or trade in existing cars for electric ones, are fond of living a jet setting lifestyle, including plenty of flying in private jets.

 

I wonder how many man made climate warriors living in Thailand went there in sailing ships, and use no Thai electricity generated by fossil fuels?

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've occasionally observed that those with children are biggest local polluters, driving huge cars with massive engines to school so the little darlings don't have to walk or take the bus.

I've occasionally observed that those who attend climate conferences like to use an extraordinary amount of jet fuel shuttling hundreds of participants to luxury resorts to emit loads of hot air.

I've occasionally observed that those that like to pontificate about how the common man should cut back on their lifestyle or trade in existing cars for electric ones, are fond of living a jet setting lifestyle, including plenty of flying in private jets.

 

I wonder how many man made climate warriors living in Thailand went there in sailing ships, and use no Thai electricity generated by fossil fuels?

I don't know any climate warriors in Thailand so you'll have to ask them. I do know plenty of people who agree that the world in its current manmade form is on a path to destruction and rather than sit back and do nothing they help in their own small way.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how many man made climate warriors living in Thailand went there in sailing ships, and use no Thai electricity generated by fossil fuels?

I'm not a believer but I generate 80% of my electricity.

The believers don't usually do anything except talk and push their globalist agenda.

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I don't know any climate warriors in Thailand so you'll have to ask them. I do know plenty of people who agree that the world in its current manmade form is on a path to destruction and rather than sit back and do nothing they help in their own small way.

My point is that IMO all the "small ways" don't add up to doodoo when China, India and Brazil are polluting in massive ways.

If it makes them happy to be doing something, that's fine, but IMO they shouldn't be fooling themselves that by driving an electric car they are "solving" the climate "crisis".

 

Want to do something that really does make a difference- have less children and stop overpopulating the world.

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I do know plenty of people who agree that the world in its current manmade form is on a path to destruction and rather than sit back and do nothing they help in their own small way.

How do you help?

Do you generate your own electricity?

Have you given up international air travel?

Have you given up your oil powered transport?

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not a believer but I generate 80% of my electricity.

The believers don't usually do anything except talk and push their globalist agenda.

 

You have reputedly made a connection between those who support tackling climate change and ‘Globalists’.

 

Can you please explain the basis of the connection you make?

 

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not a believer but I generate 80% of my electricity.

The believers don't usually do anything except talk and push their globalist agenda.

 

It's an excellent way for governments to tax us more. No wonder they keep telling us it's for our own good while living the jet set life flying overseas instead of using videoconferencing.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My point is that IMO all the "small ways" don't add up to doodoo when China, India and Brazil are polluting in massive ways.

If it makes them happy to be doing something, that's fine, but IMO they shouldn't be fooling themselves that by driving an electric car they are "solving" the climate "crisis".

 

Want to do something that really does make a difference- have less children and stop overpopulating the world.

I know a number of people who drive electric cars, I don’t know any that claim doing so will in and of itself solve climate change.

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you please explain the basis of the connection you make?

Globalists want to run the entire world.

Stopping Climate change (if it existed) wouldn't work without having ALL countries under their tight control.

 

It's fairly obvious really!

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How do you help?

Do you generate your own electricity?

Have you given up international air travel?

Have you given up your oil powered transport?

LOL. I've asked similar on some climate change threads I've been on, but never had a reply. Don't hold your breath.

Just now, BritManToo said:

How do you help?

Do you generate your own electricity?

Have you given up international air travel?

Have you given up your oil powered transport?

I pay fees for my daughters international school with over 800 pupils that produces 100% of its own electricity. I drive a hybred car and looking to get ev. I won't bother listing all the other small contributions we try to make. 

 

 

Just now, BritManToo said:

I'm not a believer but I generate 80% of my electricity.

The believers don't usually do anything except talk and push their globalist agenda.

Believing is merely an excuse for globalists to own and control everything for our own good.

Agree, I generate 99% of all my energy needs.  Only use cooking gas, and usually only during nighttime.  

 

Others talk about change or listen and agree with others talking about change.  I prefer to do, not talk about or wait for govt or some organization to do for me or lead the way.   Apparently they're not, and if anything, they are doing the opposite.

 

Preventing or making it cost preventive for others to DIY it.  No reason why most rooftops alone, and not cover in solar panels.

 

People believe, complain and talk about MMGW/CG ... but what are they doing about it ?

 

..... talking, problem solved.