UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[up2u2]

I suppose Murdoch funded it.

You suppose? That definitely takes Win, Place and Show for the silliest evidence-free slur on this thread.

What scientific Journal was it peer reviewed and published in?

What scientific Journal was the idea that a 2C temperature rise is the "dangerous limit" peer reviewed and published in? Typical Green-Left double standards

Please RB the Frontier Center For Public Policy is a registered charity and is described as right wing libertarian politically.

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate capitalist economics, negative rights, and a reactionary reversal of the modern welfare state. Right libertarians strongly support private property rights, and defend unequal distribution of natural resources and private property.This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, which maintain that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.

Or the brief version: Right Wing Climate Denier crapola. The fact that the idiot Monckton has anything to do with it makes it shred-able.

If Patrick Moore and Monckton are so sure of their position why isn't the Article submitted for peer review?

[RickBradford]

I suppose Murdoch funded it.

You suppose? That definitely takes Win, Place and Show for the silliest evidence-free slur on this thread.

What scientific Journal was it peer reviewed and published in?

What scientific Journal was the idea that a 2C temperature rise is the "dangerous limit" peer reviewed and published in? Typical Green-Left double standards

https://www.google.co.th/#q=What+scientific+Journal+was+the+idea+that+a+2C+temperature+rise+is+the+%22dangerous+limit%22+peer+reviewed+and+published+in

Your capacity for quality research is established - cutting and pasting the phrase into a Google Search. Pass 'Go', award yourself 200 virtue signalling points and bask in the glory.

Actually, the 2C "dangerous limit" was made up for purely political purposes by Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber of PIK, as he freely and publicly admits. From Der Spiegel:

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal. The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

I won't provide the link -- your undoubted mastery of Google should lead you to the full interview.

[RickBradford]

Please RB the Frontier Center For Public Policy is a registered charity and is described as right wing libertarian politically.

I'm not surprised you believe that only left-wing organisations and charities should be allowed to publish their opinions; suppression of opposing views is virtually the only tactic the Green/Left knows. Along with silly ad hominem attacks. If Monckton is an "idiot", I shudder to think what that makes you.

Get anywhere on that Murdoch funding yet?

[up2u2]

Please RB the Frontier Center For Public Policy is a registered charity and is described as right wing libertarian politically.

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate capitalist economics, negative rights, and a reactionary reversal of the modern welfare state. Right libertarians strongly support private property rights, and defend unequal distribution of natural resources and private property.This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, which maintain that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.

Or the brief version: Right Wing Climate Denier crapola. The fact that the idiot Monckton has anything to do with it makes it shred-able.

If Patrick Moore and Monckton are so sure of their position why isn't the Article submitted for peer review?

Your capacity for quality research is established - cutting and pasting the phrase into a Google Search. Pass 'Go', award yourself 200 virtue signalling points and bask in the glory.

Actually, the 2C "dangerous limit" was made up for purely political purposes by Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber of PIK, as he freely and publicly admits. From Der Spiegel:

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal. The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

I won't provide the link -- your undoubted mastery of Google should lead you to the full interview.

Off on another diversionary tangent.

Why hasn't Moore and Monckton's Article been submitted for peer review and published in a respected scientific journal rather than some trumped up Right Wing charity rag?

You and I both know why. It's crapola.

[RickBradford]

Why hasn't Moore and Monckton's Article been submitted for peer review and published in a respected scientific journal rather than some trumped up Right Wing charity rag?

Really, your rigid self-delusion worsens. If it had been funded by Murdoch (as you falsely alleged), you would dismiss it as paid-for content. Now that you accept it doesn't have that funding, you decry it as a "charity rag". And "Right Wing", again, yawn, yawn. I guess you don't understood the concept of a circular argument.

I know that nothing will deflate your comforting self-righteous bubble, but let me point out that the Stern Review, perhaps the most significant economic report yet produced on climate change, was also not peer reviewed. Whether it was 'crapola' or not is still being debated. The World Bank didn't think so, nor did the International Energy Agency.

By the way, did you even start to read Moore's report? Or does your superior moralistic vorldview let you just 'know' it is 'crapola' without troubling to read it?

Edited June 9, 2016 by RickBradford

[MajarTheLion]

the authorities have known about this for over 30 years but have been silenced by the energy giants,and nothing is going to change,we will see an increase in summer temps and more erratic weather patterns,more siesmic activity,everything i see is "too little too late".

Who has been silenced? We have the president of the United States, the one before him, the media, the UN and a plethora of personalities sounding the proverbial alarm. And they've been sounding it for decades.

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement. From name-calling, trying to have people brought up on charges, attempts to decertify meteorologists and other attacks on people who dare to dissent, it's clear where the silencing is coming from.

[RickBradford]

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement.

Suppression of dissenting views is almost the only Green/Left strategy, because they know they would lose bigtime in the marketplace of free ideas. Their little 'safe spaces' need protection from anything that might be 'Right Wing'.

They can't abide even minor deviation from the True Climate Faith, so forced tattooings, destruction of careers, prosecution, banning from the airwaves, executions of their opponents are things they truly believe in, much like several other unsavory political regimes of the 20th century.

[ilostmypassword]

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement.

Suppression of dissenting views is almost the only Green/Left strategy, because they know they would lose bigtime in the marketplace of free ideas. Their little 'safe spaces' need protection from anything that might be 'Right Wing'.

They can't abide even minor deviation from the True Climate Faith, so forced tattooings, destruction of careers, prosecution, banning from the airwaves, executions of their opponents are things they truly believe in, much like several other unsavory political regimes of the 20th century.

You have some sort of polling information to cite to back up your statement. As I recall, you seem a little weak on that score. A few pages back you claimed disbelief in human caused climate change was on the decline. I cited a poll that showed actually it was at an 8 year high. You replied...well you didn't say anything, did you?

This kind of nonsense, citing the extreme views of a few, and tarring 98,4 percent of climate scientists and others with it, is typical of your approach to the question of climate change.

[MajarTheLion]

They've been recording coral bleaching for only about 60 years or so. Coral bleaching is not coral death. Bleaching is a natural response to one or more of many things that happen.

There are all kinds of things that scientists predict that DO NOT come true..

Here are just a few....... if you wish... I can find lots more:

Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:

10. “The earth’s crust does not move”– 19th through mid 20th century accepted scientific consensus in geological science.

9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

Excellent list. I'd like add eugenics. Until Hitler took it way too far, eugenics was a very popular movement. The founding of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger was largely based on eugenics and her desire to control breeding of undesirables. And she wasn't the only one. There was a plethora of laws, foundations and other activities targeted towards eugenics in the United States.

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

Edited June 9, 2016 by MajarTheLion

[boomerangutang]

From the research i have done,reading as many sources of information i can,i am strongly starting to think we may have actually silently passed the tipping point,as the last few months indicate,sea ice in the Arctic at lowest ever extent,highest ever temp recorded in India this week,highest ever temps recently recorded in SE Asia,massive droughts in Africa,Australia having a record warm autumn,record sea temps leading to biggest bleaching event in recorded data.

Does anyone really think that the paris accord will do much to lower co2 emissions,i am afraid it is looking more like we w ill be hitting the 4-6c temp rise which will prove catastrophic for much of humankind,and change many areas of the planet,Se Asia at least the mainland is very vunerable,lets not forget once the Sahara,and large parts of Australia were once lush forests.

Yes you are correct. Al Gore gave us ten years to do something before it was too late. That time has passed. We are all doomed!

Of course, the "highest ever temps" is pure nonsense. It means highest temperatures ever recording. Serious context is missing. We've been recording temperatures for about 0.0003% of the time Earth has existed. Furthermore, this latest temperature rise is less than the previous four over the past 400,000 years. There's really not much to be excited about here. Earth's climate is constantly changing. And to think we're going to change the course of it by a carbon trading scheme for the rich, welfare subsidies for Teslas and other scams is quite frankly absurd.

You're right to an extent, but wrong in comparing it to today's GW. No intelligent debater on this topic is comparing what happened eons before to what is happening in past and future decades. That's like saying, "Why is anyone surprised the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, as there have been ice ages tens of thousands of years prior."

The chart is probably not going to show above. It's the chart MTL dug up which shows temp rises and falls for tens of thousands of years prior. That's interesting but is not relevant to the GW discussion.

The GW issue is about past decades and future decades. The main reason: People are mostly concerned about people, and people have been overpopulating the planet for the past hundred years - particularly recent decades. We've all seen the hockey-stick charts of human population explosion. People adapt to niches. They try to survive, prosper and multiply. Most people are poor, so they can't just happily jump in the station wagon with their kids and dog, and move to a better locale.

Most peoples' living arrangements are hanging by a thread (much more deprived than ThaiVisa posters). Some examples: people residing in or near deserts, people surviving in swamps and deltas, people eking out an existence in cities at (or very near) sea level. Some cities, like New Orleans, are below sea level! Probably half the large cities ww fall into that category. And half of remaining cities (roughly 25% overall) are along rivers which are prone to flooding and possibly also sea surges (which salinate fresh water, among other calamities).

So, roughly half the people in the world are eking out survival in places which would change significantly if sea levels rose, temps rose, storms got more intense, and/or deserts kept expanding - all of which is happening as we speak. Farmers are particularly vulnerable.

There are others, like myself, who take a broader view, and are also concerned about species other than humans. ......that could trigger a whole lot of other discussions......

[ilostmypassword]

They've been recording coral bleaching for only about 60 years or so. Coral bleaching is not coral death. Bleaching is a natural response to one or more of many things that happen.

There are all kinds of things that scientists predict that DO NOT come true..

Here are just a few....... if you wish... I can find lots more:

Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:

10. “The earth’s crust does not move”– 19th through mid 20th century accepted scientific consensus in geological science.

9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

Excellent list. I'd like add eugenics. Until Hitler took it way too far, eugenics was a very popular movement. The founding of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger was largely based on eugenics and her desire to control breeding of undesirables. And she wasn't the only one. There was a plethora of laws, foundations and other activities targeted towards eugenics in the United States.

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

All these statements are about unexamined beliefs that later turned out to untrue. The scienitic ones which are the only ones relevant fell by they wayside because they were subject to scientific investigation. (f . Global Warming Theory is not an unexamined belief. it is constantly being rigorously tested, examined and refined.

Actually, there is one example up there that I do support because it shows the intellectual weakness of whoever it was assembled that list. It's number 8 and the case of Peter Duesberg. He justly earned ridicule because he insisted against all evidence that the HIV virus didn't cause AIDS. He's probably a global warming denier now.

[arjunadawn]

No, climate change is not about the narrow view of decades. This is strongly pushed by ideologues of climate change because it breaks the context and employs emotion. 'Look outside, see?' it hot! Is an appeal to emotion, not reason. 'Yes, it's hotter then years earlier.'

A survey of inundation maps for the past 27,000 years show numerous cities- civilizations- have been consumed by seas up to 5000BP, and later. This is just recent Halocene-Pleistocene rises. Evidence suggests this dynamic is as old as earth itself. Fir obvious reasons humans are drawn to coastal areas like a cat to catnip. Coupled with an 'amnesia' (G. H.) humans repeat the same cycle again and again.

A quick look at Tamil civilization alone shows them moving their capital city repeatedly over thousands of years until Sri Lanka was totally severed. This story plays out everywhere. It's primary induced by cosmic/solar forces acting on precession. Pollution and over population are worthy discussions, but fodder for this issue. They're employed as non sequitur.

'Yea! There's lots of people and the earth's got too much pollution.' Therefore the impact on climate change is... No! Wrong. The climate is changing as its wont to do, and always has, and cities will be swallowed by the sea. Wanna stop that? Move inland.

[up2u2]

No, climate change is not about the narrow view of decades. This is strongly pushed by ideologues of climate change because it breaks the context and employs emotion. 'Look outside, see?' it hot! Is an appeal to emotion, not reason. 'Yes, it's hotter then years earlier.'

A survey of inundation maps for the past 27,000 years show numerous cities- civilizations- have been consumed by seas up to 5000BP, and later. This is just recent Halocene-Pleistocene rises. Evidence suggests this dynamic is as old as earth itself. Fir obvious reasons humans are drawn to coastal areas like a cat to catnip. Coupled with an 'amnesia' (G. H.) humans repeat the same cycle again and again.

A quick look at Tamil civilization alone shows them moving their capital city repeatedly over thousands of years until Sri Lanka was totally severed. This story plays out everywhere. It's primary induced by cosmic/solar forces acting on precession. Pollution and over population are worthy discussions, but fodder for this issue. They're employed as non sequitur.

'Yea! There's lots of people and the earth's got too much pollution.' Therefore the impact on climate change is... No! Wrong. The climate is changing as its wont to do, and always has, and cities will be swallowed by the sea. Wanna stop that? Move inland.

'If I make it sound really sciency it will sound like I know what I am talking about.'

The points you make regarding the scientific history of the Earth is what GW / CC is based on.

[wabothai]

At least the lemmings knew when it was the time for collective suicide .

Mankind is doing the same but destroying the planet as well .

Don't forget to listen to your white shirted , necktied leaders , they teach you what is good , ( for their own bank accounts )

Capitalism in the present form leads straight to destruction .

Some thing wrong with the system we are living in !

And I know what I talk about , my profession was to analyze systems .

yeah, like sheepish rabbits after the carrot, and after they caught the carrot they consumed it like hyenas and then there was nothing.

[boomerangutang]

A survey of inundation maps for the past 27,000 years show numerous cities- civilizations- have been consumed by seas up to 5000BP, and later. This is just recent Halocene-Pleistocene rises. Evidence suggests this dynamic is as old as earth itself. Fir obvious reasons humans are drawn to coastal areas like a cat to catnip. Coupled with an 'amnesia' (G. H.) humans repeat the same cycle again and again.

A quick look at Tamil civilization alone shows them moving their capital city repeatedly over thousands of years until Sri Lanka was totally severed. This story plays out everywhere. It's primary induced by cosmic/solar forces acting on precession. Pollution and over population are worthy discussions, but fodder for this issue. They're employed as non sequitur.

'Yea! There's lots of people and the earth's got too much pollution.' Therefore the impact on climate change is... No! Wrong. The climate is changing as its wont to do, and always has, and cities will be swallowed by the sea. Wanna stop that? Move inland.

Again, we're not talking about 27,000 years ago. We're talking about now, the recent past and the near future. The issue is about decades, not increments of tens of thousands of years. No one is debating whether Earth has gone through many dramatic climate cycles. We all know that. The topic relates to now and near future, because hundreds of millions of people are tenuously eking out livings at the fringes; deserts, deltas, swamps, cities at or v. near sea levels. that's what's pertinent to this discussion.

Arjuna asks; "Wanna stop that? Move inland." It's not simple-minded like that. Most people who are & will be adversely affected by GW cannot pick up and move to a better place. They're too poor and/or can't readily cross into other countries. Actually, millions are trying to do that now, as proven by mass migrations from the M.East, N. and NE Africa, Burmese coast, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, etc. etc etc. Plus 'INLAND' is not necessarily better. Floods can happen inland. Even sea surges can travel inland. Deserts are usually located inland. So the snarky solution ('move inland') is actually not realistic, untenable, and unreasonable.

[thaibeachlovers]

What does it matter, if you think, as many activists do, and many UN bigwigs bloviate, that we must start to cut CO2 emissions immediately or risk climate apocalypse.

There is even a prominent and well-funded organisation called 350.org, which believes we must cut the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350ppm from the current 400ppm.

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.” - Dr. James Hansen

It isn't going to happen. And everyone knows it.

350ppm would be good. Glad you weren't in charge of the Moon Landing. The whole project would have been cancelled the following day of the announcement was made by FJK. Fortunately Climate Deniers funded by the Fossil Fuel industry no longer count.

What on earth has the moon landing got to do with Rick's opinions on GW/ CC?

I'm still waiting for a suggestion of a workable solution that would reduce GW/ CC, but there just aren't any being touted by those that keep telling us the world will end if we don't do "something". Obviously they don't have a clue as to what "something" is.

[thaibeachlovers]

the authorities have known about this for over 30 years but have been silenced by the energy giants,and nothing is going to change,we will see an increase in summer temps and more erratic weather patterns,more siesmic activity,everything i see is "too little too late".

Who has been silenced? We have the president of the United States, the one before him, the media, the UN and a plethora of personalities sounding the proverbial alarm. And they've been sounding it for decades.

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement. From name-calling, trying to have people brought up on charges, attempts to decertify meteorologists and other attacks on people who dare to dissent, it's clear where the silencing is coming from.

Ah, the POTUS telling us that we have to change to save the planet. How hypocritical can one get, given that he loves to fly around the world in AF1, and have a huge convoy of cars accompany him when he goes anywhere on roads?

Actually, has he ever made an actual suggestion of anything that would work to reverse CC? I don't recall anything.

[up2u2]

What on earth has the moon landing got to do with Rick's opinions on GW/ CC?

I'm still waiting for a suggestion of a workable solution that would reduce GW/ CC, but there just aren't any being touted by those that keep telling us the world will end if we don't do "something". Obviously they don't have a clue as to what "something" is.

Well if RB was put in charge of landing a man on the moon we would still be waiting. Same as if we put him in charge of reducing CO₂ levels it just wouldn't happen. He'd be pissing about doing nothing. He doesn't seem to be a 'go too' kind of person.

"something" has been pointed out to you 20 times.

Ah, the POTUS telling us that we have to change to save the planet. How hypocritical can one get, given that he loves to fly around the world in AF1, and have a huge convoy of cars accompany him when he goes anywhere on roads?

Actually, has he ever made an actual suggestion of anything that would work to reverse CC? I don't recall anything.

AF1 and Obama's cavalcade would have no effect on GW.

There is a whole website on it. Where have you been?:

White House Global Warming Climate Change

[RickBradford]

^^^

US emissions of CO2 have fallen over the past few years, not due to any high-sounding gobbledegook on a White House website, but due to the rapid proliferation of fracking operations across the country (which Greens oppose, of course)

Fracking, not government green policies, has caused CO2 emissions to drop sharply in 47 states and Washington, D.C., according to both Scientific American and other studies by the EIA [Energy Information Administration].

Of course, this achievement cannot be replicated across the globe, and so we're back to square one, as Martin Wolf of the Financial Times notes

Global inaction shows that the climate sceptics have already won

Humanity has decided to yawn and let the real and present dangers of climate change mount. Judged by the world’s inaction, climate sceptics have won. For the rest of us, the question that remains is whether anything can still be done and, if so, what?

The answer has turned out to be No. Wolf wrote that three years ago, and since then, "the world's inaction" has been enshrined in law by the "historic" Paris conference.

The activists lost this one, but being activists, they'll be back with something else, like water scarcity or biodiversity worries. It's what they do.

[up2u2]

RB off on another vague tangent of Climate Denial.

Proven to be wrong on everything so far so just jumps to more cherry picking misinformation.

"Don't like this Climate Denial? That's okay I have more"

[RickBradford]

^^^

The typical tiresome and repetitive Green/Left response to unarguable facts.

Ad hominem (check), red herrings (check), baseless assertion (check), make-believe comments (check).

You should ask for a refund from Agit-Prop School..........

[boomerangutang]

Nearly all climate scientists and scientists in general believe climate change and a warming planet is real, AND that people activities are a major factor.

Let's more on, shall we? Let's see what how we can support reasonable efforts to lessen desertification, and serious flooding for future generation. But not just to avoid pain and suffering for people, but for other species also.

Most of the plans proposed to lessen warming are also good for lessening fossil fuel use, so it's a win-win. Even if warming trend is not as dire as nearly all climate scientists say it is, ...the lessening of fossil fuel use will be a BIG PLUS for people and other species. Recycling, cleaning the seas, turning parts of deserts green, .....will also be good for the planet, good for people and other species. Who's got a problem with that? Actually, I know the answer (mostly people with some involvement in fossil fuel industries), but I don't want to sound negative right now.

[thaibeachlovers]

What on earth has the moon landing got to do with Rick's opinions on GW/ CC?

I'm still waiting for a suggestion of a workable solution that would reduce GW/ CC, but there just aren't any being touted by those that keep telling us the world will end if we don't do "something". Obviously they don't have a clue as to what "something" is.

Well if RB was put in charge of landing a man on the moon we would still be waiting. Same as if we put him in charge of reducing CO₂ levels it just wouldn't happen. He'd be pissing about doing nothing. He doesn't seem to be a 'go too' kind of person.

"something" has been pointed out to you 20 times.

Ah, the POTUS telling us that we have to change to save the planet. How hypocritical can one get, given that he loves to fly around the world in AF1, and have a huge convoy of cars accompany him when he goes anywhere on roads?

Actually, has he ever made an actual suggestion of anything that would work to reverse CC? I don't recall anything.

AF1 and Obama's cavalcade would have no effect on GW.

There is a whole website on it. Where have you been?:

White House Global Warming Climate Change

Anyone with a brain cell knows that. The point is that it would be an EXAMPLE of leadership in combatting what he says that he believes in. The fact that he shows ZERO leadership can be taken to mean that he wants us to do what he says, while he makes no sacrifices at all. I have to wonder if he actually believes it. After all, if nothing changes HIS children are going to suffer- does he not care about their future?

[thaibeachlovers]

Nearly all climate scientists and scientists in general believe climate change and a warming planet is real, AND that people activities are a major factor.

Let's more on, shall we? Let's see what how we can support reasonable efforts to lessen desertification, and serious flooding for future generation. But not just to avoid pain and suffering for people, but for other species also.

Most of the plans proposed to lessen warming are also good for lessening fossil fuel use, so it's a win-win. Even if warming trend is not as dire as nearly all climate scientists say it is, ...the lessening of fossil fuel use will be a BIG PLUS for people and other species. Recycling, cleaning the seas, turning parts of deserts green, .....will also be good for the planet, good for people and other species. Who's got a problem with that? Actually, I know the answer (mostly people with some involvement in fossil fuel industries), but I don't want to sound negative right now.

I don't disagree with any of your last paragraph. Unfortunately our leaders aren't doing anything to achieve those goals, even though they could, if they wanted to. They are the people you have to talk to, we on TV can't change anything.

[RickBradford]

Nearly all climate scientists and scientists in general believe climate change and a warming planet is real, AND that people activities are a major factor.

Let's more on, shall we?

That's not good enough. Yes, all of us — or those of us in the 97.1% or 98.4% or 99.999%, whatever the figure du jour is — believe in climate change and that man's activities have the ability to impact climate.

But that leaves unanswered the really important questions:

a ) Is the warming beneficial or dangerous for the foreseeable future? What are the economic and social trade-offs between acting now or later?

b ) What would be the best actions to take if climate change is regarded overall as dangerous?

c ) Can those actions be made effective and globally implemented?

The answer to c ) at least, is clear, after the conclusion of the Paris conference. No, actions proposed by the UN cannot be made effective and globally implemented.

There are many things that can be done to benefit humanity, if we diverted even a small portion of the money currently being p**sed away on pointless climate activities. How about elimination of malaria? Reducing malnutrition? Sanitation and clean water? Basic education?

No, the Green/Left, for whom feelings are more important than facts, and whose personal vanity projects are far more important to them than the lives of children in the Third World, would far rather keep frantically virtue signalling by feel-good fantasy projects such as shoving up armies of useless windmills which do nothing for the climate, but enrich landowners, bankers and organised crime.

[fasteddie]

The only silencing attempts going on are from the "climate change" political movement.

Suppression of dissenting views is almost the only Green/Left strategy, because they know they would lose bigtime in the marketplace of free ideas. Their little 'safe spaces' need protection from anything that might be 'Right Wing'.

They can't abide even minor deviation from the True Climate Faith, so forced tattooings, destruction of careers, prosecution, banning from the airwaves, executions of their opponents are things they truly believe in, much like several other unsavory political regimes of the 20th century.

You have some sort of polling information to cite to back up your statement. As I recall, you seem a little weak on that score. A few pages back you claimed disbelief in human caused climate change was on the decline. I cited a poll that showed actually it was at an 8 year high. You replied...well you didn't say anything, did you?

This kind of nonsense, citing the extreme views of a few, and tarring 98,4 percent of climate scientists and others with it, is typical of your approach to the question of climate change.

98.4 percent?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

[boomerangutang]

Nearly all climate scientists and scientists in general believe climate change and a warming planet is real, AND that people activities are a major factor.

Let's more on, shall we?

That's not good enough. Yes, all of us — or those of us in the 97.1% or 98.4% or 99.999%, whatever the figure du jour is — believe in climate change and that man's activities have the ability to impact climate.

But that leaves unanswered the really important questions:

a ) Is the warming beneficial or dangerous for the foreseeable future? What are the economic and social trade-offs between acting now or later?

b ) What would be the best actions to take if climate change is regarded overall as dangerous?

c ) Can those actions be made effective and globally implemented?

The answer to c ) at least, is clear, after the conclusion of the Paris conference. No, actions proposed by the UN cannot be made effective and globally implemented.

There are many things that can be done to benefit humanity, if we diverted even a small portion of the money currently being p**sed away on pointless climate activities. How about elimination of malaria? Reducing malnutrition? Sanitation and clean water? Basic education?

No, the Green/Left, for whom feelings are more important than facts, and whose personal vanity projects are far more important to them than the lives of children in the Third World, would far rather keep frantically virtue signalling by feel-good fantasy projects such as shoving up armies of useless windmills which do nothing for the climate, but enrich landowners, bankers and organised crime.

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Wind power is more of an energy-related issue than a climate issue. Yet, the more power generated by clean alternatives, the less power needed by fossil fuels and nuclear = less smog and toxicity. Just last month was the first month ever that Scotland produced more power from renewables than by coal. Australia has a functional model for large scale power generation from waves. There are improvements coming forth week by week, mostly by scientists in farang countries.

As for you Q's:

A. I believe that overall, warming is more dangerous for future. Reasons: more & swifter desertification, coral reefs dying (that's where most fish and other marine species get started), flooding of cities, spread of disease (affecting people and other species), are some reasons.

Q's B and C have been addressed at length in these sorts of threads and all over the internet. I don't want to write a treatise here and now.

Edited June 14, 2016 by boomerangutang

[up2u2]

^^^

The typical tiresome and repetitive Green/Left response to unarguable facts.

Ad hominem (check), red herrings (check), baseless assertion (check), make-believe comments (check).

You should ask for a refund from Agit-Prop School..........

For a start they aren't facts just more idiotic Climate Denial. Nor are they personal attacks so give that a rest too.

Fact is you are proved to be incorrect on every aspect of GW / CC and when you are shown to be incorrect you simply go on to some other foolish tangent. You are certainly an expert on Climate Denial because that is all you read. You have little to no understanding of the actual science on GW / CC because you simply do not / will not read it or accept it. You live in hope that someday you will be right. At the end of the day the GW / CC debate has moved on and you are left to scream at shadows.

[thaibeachlovers]

Nearly all climate scientists and scientists in general believe climate change and a warming planet is real, AND that people activities are a major factor.

Let's more on, shall we?

That's not good enough. Yes, all of us — or those of us in the 97.1% or 98.4% or 99.999%, whatever the figure du jour is — believe in climate change and that man's activities have the ability to impact climate.

But that leaves unanswered the really important questions:

a ) Is the warming beneficial or dangerous for the foreseeable future? What are the economic and social trade-offs between acting now or later?

b ) What would be the best actions to take if climate change is regarded overall as dangerous?

c ) Can those actions be made effective and globally implemented?

The answer to c ) at least, is clear, after the conclusion of the Paris conference. No, actions proposed by the UN cannot be made effective and globally implemented.

There are many things that can be done to benefit humanity, if we diverted even a small portion of the money currently being p**sed away on pointless climate activities. How about elimination of malaria? Reducing malnutrition? Sanitation and clean water? Basic education?

No, the Green/Left, for whom feelings are more important than facts, and whose personal vanity projects are far more important to them than the lives of children in the Third World, would far rather keep frantically virtue signalling by feel-good fantasy projects such as shoving up armies of useless windmills which do nothing for the climate, but enrich landowners, bankers and organised crime.

Come on RB, that closing paragraph is silly. Not just bleeding heart liberals, but everyone except maybe ISIS and some Trump supporters favors better conditions for impoverished children, etc.

Wind power is more of an energy-related issue than a climate issue. Yet, the more power generated by clean alternatives, the less power needed by fossil fuels and nuclear = less smog and toxicity. Just last month was the first month ever that Scotland produced more power from renewables than by coal. Australia has a functional model for large scale power generation from waves. There are improvements coming forth week by week, mostly by scientists in farang countries.

As for you Q's:

A. I believe that overall, warming is more dangerous for future. Reasons: more & swifter desertification, coral reefs dying (that's where most fish and other marine species get started), flooding of cities, spread of disease (affecting people and other species), are some reasons.

Q's B and C have been addressed at length in these sorts of threads and all over the internet. I don't want to write a treatise here and now.

I don't disagree ( again ) with your 2nd paragraph, but "renewables" are a remedy available only to the wealthy countries. Most people live in poor countries and use carbon.

Even Saudi had renewable energy in the early 90s when I went to visit their research facility. They won't replace their oil based power though, as they simply have a load of cheap ( to them ) oil to use, despite having plenty of free sun power to use if they wanted.

As for myself, I put the lack of will to use renewables in the west to greed and power. Till there is political benefit to the ruling classes to do more little will change. My most relevant example is the GW/ CC mob's desire to hold conferences in exotic places entailing vast use of carbon to move them and their entourages around the world when they could do it all with video conferencing.

When the so called "scientists" and their political paymasters are prepared to set an example, I'll start believing that they might have a point.

Re B and C, they may have been addressed, but that is as far as it goes. Talk is cheap, though for the GW/ CC crowd it's actually expensive for the taxpayer, but talking doesn't actually change anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

^^^

The typical tiresome and repetitive Green/Left response to unarguable facts.

Ad hominem (check), red herrings (check), baseless assertion (check), make-believe comments (check).

You should ask for a refund from Agit-Prop School..........

For a start they aren't facts just more idiotic Climate Denial. Nor are they personal attacks so give that a rest too.

Fact is you are proved to be incorrect on every aspect of GW / CC and when you are shown to be incorrect you simply go on to some other foolish tangent. You are certainly an expert on Climate Denial because that is all you read. You have little to no understanding of the actual science on GW / CC because you simply do not / will not read it or accept it. You live in hope that someday you will be right. At the end of the day the GW / CC debate has moved on and you are left to scream at shadows.

Facts or not, if the ruling classes won't lead by example and the vast majority of the world won't/ can't change, it's all irrelevant to the result.

Here's a fact- for most of humanity, the struggle to merely survive another day takes precedence over any GW/ CC debate. That's where the battle to change carbon use must take place, and it hasn't even begun.