UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[ddavidovsky]

The thick layer of man-made murk visible on the horizon over any urban area from any tower-block shows something is not right. Replicate that in every urban area of the world, plus annual forest-burning, and you don't need science to tell you that it will have climatic effects, only common sense.

In any case, true or not, growth needs to slow, or stop. Climate change deniers presumably want more and more growth - endless growth, because they can't see growth's negative effects, only it's short-term opportunity for affluence. That means they want more and more people, creating the need for more and more food and water and things, putting more and more pressure on the natural environment, which will keep on shrinking until it exists only in little pockets, no longer big enough to sustain most of the species it once contained. The logic of that scenario is inescapable.

Simple analogy: you're at a party; it's cool, it's relaxed and funky - a really great party; then because everyone hears it's so good, more and more people turn up, hordes of them; thugs and louts force themselves in; soon it's so crowded you can hardly move; the air is thick with smoke; dIfferent groups start playing different types of music simultaneously; you can't hear yourself talk. The party is ruined - in fact it becomes a nightmare and you want only to get out.

The trick is to maintain the party at an optimum level. That means curbing growth. Climate change deniers have a vested interest in more growth. Climate change deniers are the louts ruining the party.

[up2u2]

Investment in renewable energy generation is only a fraction of the cost that polluting the atmosphere with CO₂ from burning Fossil Fuels will cost. Transitioning to renewable energy production isn't all that big a deal. The only section that is resisting the transition are the ones that make billions in profits from Fossil Fuels. They have managed to stall it for around 20 years using misinformation but as the actual impacts of GW and CC have been demonstrated beyond doubt and people see for themselves the results of GW and CC politicians globally have had to finally act.

[Andreas2]

Update.

 

I wasn't aware of this, but

UN expert calls for tax on meat production

What a bunch of ignorant, authoritarian, evil .

“Did you vote for these people to tell you how to live? And who will receive the tax and what will they use it for?”

 

The only problem: Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake

NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.

 

I amicably refer to my earlier post.

 

Cheers.

 

[arjunadawn]

1 hour ago, Andreas2 said:

Update.

 

I wasn't aware of this, but

UN expert calls for tax on meat production

What a bunch of ignorant, authoritarian, evil .

“Did you vote for these people to tell you how to live? And who will receive the tax and what will they use it for?”

 

The only problem: Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake

NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.

 

I amicably refer to my earlier post.

 

Cheers.

 

"Climate Change" is an ideology that is so arrogant in its scope that it defines itself by...everything. Everything supports its assumption: hot, cold, up, down, left, right, ad naseum. Any fool with a cursory knowledge of paleoclimatology, coastal subsidence, flooding from 12,500-10,000BP knows that we are constantly cycling in nested dynamics.

 

These nested dynamics are cycles within cycles; ice ages, rising, falling, epoch of repeating cycles within hundreds of thousands of years, and metadata revealing larger cycles of millions. While there is a general inclination toward more hospitable planet, the cycles continue. The Ideology of Climate Change love to conflate pollution with climate change, or permit the association. Remove every single shred of data from deliberation and just consider who is behind the ideology of climate change. It is a veritable Who's Who of communists, socialists, nihilists, atheists, redistributionists, haters, ad vomitus. Its agenda by fear, the crisis=solution dialectic in extremis.

 

[MajarTheLion]

On 5/21/2016 at 0:01 PM, Chicog said:

Really?

Did you miss the flooding, the arctic ice melt and the largest coral bleaching in recorded history then?

Or are you saying, even though scientists have been predicting those things for years, that they didn't happen or are in some way irrelevant?

 

Recorded history. I love that. Recorded history is what about 0.000001% of actual history? Even if we decide only the past million years matters, it's still only 0.02% of recent history.

 

Earth's climate has changed since the beginning of time. The outcome won't be changed by welfare programs.

[MajarTheLion]

On 7/21/2016 at 10:01 PM, ddavidovsky said:

The thick layer of man-made murk visible on the horizon over any urban area from any tower-block shows something is not right. Replicate that in every urban area of the world, plus annual forest-burning, and you don't need science to tell you that it will have climatic effects, only common sense.

In any case, true or not, growth needs to slow, or stop. Climate change deniers presumably want more and more growth - endless growth, because they can't see growth's negative effects, only it's short-term opportunity for affluence. That means they want more and more people, creating the need for more and more food and water and things, putting more and more pressure on the natural environment, which will keep on shrinking until it exists only in little pockets, no longer big enough to sustain most of the species it once contained. The logic of that scenario is inescapable.

Simple analogy: you're at a party; it's cool, it's relaxed and funky - a really great party; then because everyone hears it's so good, more and more people turn up, hordes of them; thugs and louts force themselves in; soon it's so crowded you can hardly move; the air is thick with smoke; dIfferent groups start playing different types of music simultaneously; you can't hear yourself talk. The party is ruined - in fact it becomes a nightmare and you want only to get out.

The trick is to maintain the party at an optimum level. That means curbing growth. Climate change deniers have a vested interest in more growth. Climate change deniers are the louts ruining the party.

 

I have yet to see anyone deny climate is changing. Who are you talking about?

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I have yet to see anyone deny climate is changing. Who are you talking about?

Again,Majar playing with semantics. It's best when dealing with deniers not to use the common shorthand term  but rather the full name: anthropogenic global warming or human-caused global warming..

[MajarTheLion]

49 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Again,Majar playing with semantics. It's best when dealing with deniers not to use the common shorthand term  but rather the full name: anthropogenic global warming or human-caused global warming..

 

It's about honesty and specifics. Again, no one is denying the climate is changing. So referring to people who don't toe the leftist line as climate change deniers is dishonest.

 

So are welfare programs a solution to this supposedly man-made problem? Should Americans be killed, since as you claim you read, they consume 25 times more energy than 1 Asian Indian?

 

It's the "solutions" that I take issue with. I have no problem wanting to be a good steward of our planet. But then again, if the people preaching all the doom and gloom are still riding around on private jets, how big of a problem could it be?

[RickBradford]

Quote

It's the "solutions" that I take issue with. 

 

Related to that topic, all but the most extreme snowflake climate alarmists will be able to see the value of the approach taken in this short video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, arjunadawn said:

"Climate Change" is an ideology that is so arrogant in its scope that it defines itself by...everything. Everything supports its assumption: hot, cold, up, down, left, right, ad naseum. Any fool with a cursory knowledge of paleoclimatology, coastal subsidence, flooding from 12,500-10,000BP knows that we are constantly cycling in nested dynamics.

 

These nested dynamics are cycles within cycles; ice ages, rising, falling, epoch of repeating cycles within hundreds of thousands of years, and metadata revealing larger cycles of millions. While there is a general inclination toward more hospitable planet, the cycles continue. The Ideology of Climate Change love to conflate pollution with climate change, or permit the association. Remove every single shred of data from deliberation and just consider who is behind the ideology of climate change. It is a veritable Who's Who of communists, socialists, nihilists, atheists, redistributionists, haters, ad vomitus. Its agenda by fear, the crisis=solution dialectic in extremis.

 

You forgot to mention one group in your list: Climate Scientists.

[boomerangutang]

Scientists:  "Global temperatures are rising each year."

 

Deniers:  "Maybe there are some hotter places. I don't know, but it's not human-caused because humans are too insignificant to have any such affect on a big planet.  So because I don't know, I'll put down the 97% of climate scientists who say there's a tangible effect by humans on temperature increases.  Better to do nothing, and allow fossil fuel industries to maintain the status quo, than to try and clean up pollution which probably has no affect on climate. Go Trump!"

[RickBradford]

Quote

So because I don't know, I'll put down the 97% of climate scientists who say there's a tangible effect by humans on temperature increases.

 

For possibly the hundredth time, virtually all skeptics agree with the "97% of climate scientists who say there's a tangible effect by humans on temperature increases"

 

But they question: the size of that effect; to what extent temperature increases are dangerous or beneficial; and whether current and proposed energy policies make any sense.

 

If you really can't grasp that after all this time, then yes, the debate is over.......

[ddavidovsky]

Lot of misinformation in this thread from the deniers who think we should party on regardless.

 

The chart below is from NASA. Deny that.

[RickBradford]

Quote

The chart below is from NASA. Deny that.

 

I welcome it.

 

Finally, we're steering CO2 away from the lower limit (150ppm) where plants can't survive, and hence all life on the planet would cease to exist.

 

Also from NASA:

 

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [2016].

 

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer ... The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

 

In your own words: "Deny that."

[Andreas2]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Scientists:  "Global temperatures are rising each year."

 

Deniers:  "Maybe there are some hotter places. I don't know, but it's not human-caused because humans are too insignificant to have any such affect on a big planet.  So because I don't know, I'll put down the 97% of climate scientists who say there's a tangible effect by humans on temperature increases.  Better to do nothing, and allow fossil fuel industries to maintain the status quo, than to try and clean up pollution which probably has no affect on climate. Go Trump!"

 

 

I already referred to this claim in another post about one year ago: Climate change - now is the time for Thailand to act

...

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.    [Note: 489 were randomly climate scientists?]

...

- 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years     [Note: No mentioning of "man-made"]
- 84% have the personal believe in the occurrence of human-induced warming    [Note: Believe!]

...

 

So my question is: Are we talking about the very same survey, if you say "97% of climate scientists who say there's a tangible effect by humans on temperature increases"?

 

If my question entitles you to call me a denier, so be it, but I'm not a 97%-er or a blind believer of fake NOAA statistics.

And yes, I am also against pollution, like Mr. Trump, but (cleaned/filtered) CO2 is not a pollutant.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Andreas2

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Again,Majar playing with semantics. It's best when dealing with deniers not to use the common shorthand term  but rather the full name: anthropogenic global warming or human-caused global warming..

Which has never been proven.

Even if it had been, nothing is being done that would change it back, and change it back to what, exactly- no one is talking about that.

[MajarTheLion]

8 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Lot of misinformation in this thread from the deniers who think we should party on regardless.

 

The chart below is from NASA. Deny that.

 

Wow, that graph looks so scary!

 

But let's look at the actual math, shall we? So we've gone from 0.00175% CO2 to 0.00400% CO2. Now what is it I'm supposed to get excited about here? Water vapor is much more prevalent in the atmosphere and is also a greenhouse gas.

 

I say "party on". If the climate change fear mongers aren't concerned enough to curtail traveling around the world on private jets anywhere size-wise from Cessna Citations to 747s, trying to scare people, why should I be concerned at all?

[MajarTheLion]

On 7/21/2016 at 2:25 AM, up2u2 said:

Classic Climate Denial 'cherry picking'. So a ship cannot take a specific route due to Sea Ice. Totally irrelevant to Sea Ice extent in the Arctic. Antarctic or Greenland also irrelevant to Glacial melting. Sea Ice extent is the lowest in recorded history.

'Real Climate Science' doesn't seem to be able to read the Report:

"The Arctic Heat Wave is Off The Charts Right Now"

"So far, 2016 has been a record hot year however you slice it—but the Arctic ison fire. A recently updated graph by the National Snow and Ice Data Center’sAndrew Slater shows just how freakishly warm it’s been in what is ostensibly one of the coldest regions of our planet."

Seems nature is following the script perfectly.

 

Wow! The arctic is "on fire"???? How many firefighters have been sent to deal with this blaze?

 

You see, this is why people don't buy "climate change" hysteria. Climate change fanatics simply make things up like "on fire" and "freakishly warm", with no actual data in context.

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Wow, that graph looks so scary!

 

But let's look at the actual math, shall we? So we've gone from 0.00175% CO2 to 0.00400% CO2. Now what is it I'm supposed to get excited about here? Water vapor is much more prevalent in the atmosphere and is also a greenhouse gas.

 

I say "party on". If the climate change fear mongers aren't concerned enough to curtail traveling around the world on private jets anywhere size-wise from Cessna Citations to 747s, trying to scare people, why should I be concerned at all?

"When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise..."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

[Andreas2]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise..."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

As I'm not a climate scientist and, as a matter of fact, I'm not even a scientist at all, the article you are referring to, is convincing to me... But you know already what is coming next, right?

Nature abhors a positive feedback

I'm sure, you see the dilemma, at least for the majority of us who are not "climate scientists", I guess.

 

One of the many things I have learnt during my stay in this world is, that I must never ever trust politicians and foremost bureaucrats (UN, anybody?) - And you can add the intelligentsia to that list, especially accredited, state-approved and thus state-funded "climate scientists" (They know exactly who is feeding them). In the end, their "solutions" to solve our problems always result in - surprise, surprise, you guessed it correctly - raising taxes... To fund our dear "leaders'" pet projects.

 

We all lived through the phases of "global cooling", "global warming" and are stuck right now in "global climate change". Oh, I almost forgot, all of these are "man-made", of course, and thus can only be resolved by our wise "leaders'" policies, elected or non-elected... By rising taxes. The already existing taxes are never sufficient to finance the survival of mankind or to "save the planet" (As if the earth couldn't survive without us... As if the earth wouldn't have already "survived" much more extreme climates, including flora and fauna, than during the last 100+ million years).

 

It's really sad that I have read so many plausible reports about faked NOAA statistics and biased IPCC models/predictions, that my experience with politicians, bureaucrats ("leaders") and so-called leading scientists are confirmed again and again.

 

The only thing I try to do, is, to occasionally update this state-sponsored and -financed MSM meme "UN sounds alarm over record breaking temperature rise" with recent findings and stories which are consequently not reported by the very same MSM (They also know who feeds them and gives them the needed access and licenses). It's sad how the people are successfully divided by our "leaders" and their minions into believers and deniers.

[MajarTheLion]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise..."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

Great! So water vapor creates a 'positive feedback loop'. Now what? Should we go after "big water"? What is your solution to water vapor, especially given the text you copied and pasted states water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas?

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Great! So water vapor creates a 'positive feedback loop'. Now what? Should we go after "big water"? What is your solution to water vapor, especially given the text you copied and pasted states water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas?

Since water vapor magnifies the effects of carbon dioxide and there isn't much you can do about water vapor, the best thing is reduce carbon dioxide so there will be less of it for water to magnify its effects.  

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Since water vapor magnifies the effects of carbon dioxide and there isn't much you can do about water vapor, the best thing is reduce carbon dioxide so there will be less of it for water to magnify its effects. 

OK. Just how is it proposed to actually reduce CO2? Nothing I've seen will do that.

I'll bet not a single climate change advocate has stopped driving a car, or using electricity generated by carbon since this whole issue came up. Obama certainly hasn't.

[MajarTheLion]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Since water vapor magnifies the effects of carbon dioxide and there isn't much you can do about water vapor, the best thing is reduce carbon dioxide so there will be less of it for water to magnify its effects.  

 

So why aren't the people so concerned about CO2 cutting back on their creation of it? If they're not worried enough to change their habits, why should I?

[MajarTheLion]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OK. Just how is it proposed to actually reduce CO2? Nothing I've seen will do that.

I'll bet not a single climate change advocate has stopped driving a car, or using electricity generated by carbon since this whole issue came up. Obama certainly hasn't.

 

I think you've touched on why this political movement has no credibility. The people behind the movement have been caught again and again manipulating data. The people preaching to us fly around on private jets. Barack Obama is the worst, flying around on a 747 and bringing along a separate 757 because Michelle wants to leave a few hours later. This does not sound like someone concerned about C02 generation to me at all.

 

His 747 burns a minimum of 3,000 gallons per hour. My car burns an average of 2 gallons per hour. He burns as much as 1,500 of my cars (a small Japanese import) and preaches to me on how I have to change my life. That does not make logical sense to me. When I see these politicians and activists start walking their talk, I'll pay more attention. Until then, they're the same as the eugenics clowns from the early 20th century- a bunch of morons supporting a twisted ideology.

 

And yes oh yes eugenics had many followers- JUST LIKE THE "CLIMATE CHANGE" political movement. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started by a racist and eugenics believer specifically to keep "undesirables" from breeding. And to this day, Planned Parenthood still targets blacks and hispanics for abortions.

 

No, I want nothing to do with this "climate change" movement. It is a sucker's game and its only goal is government power and control.

[JetsetBkk]

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 at 0:25 PM, ddavidovsky said:

Lot of misinformation in this thread from the deniers who think we should party on regardless.

 

The chart below is from NASA. Deny that.

 

 

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I think you've touched on why this political movement has no credibility. The people behind the movement have been caught again and again manipulating data. The people preaching to us fly around on private jets. Barack Obama is the worst, flying around on a 747 and bringing along a separate 757 because Michelle wants to leave a few hours later. This does not sound like someone concerned about C02 generation to me at all.

 

His 747 burns a minimum of 3,000 gallons per hour. My car burns an average of 2 gallons per hour. He burns as much as 1,500 of my cars (a small Japanese import) and preaches to me on how I have to change my life. That does not make logical sense to me. When I see these politicians and activists start walking their talk, I'll pay more attention. Until then, they're the same as the eugenics clowns from the early 20th century- a bunch of morons supporting a twisted ideology.

 

And yes oh yes eugenics had many followers- JUST LIKE THE "CLIMATE CHANGE" political movement. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started by a racist and eugenics believer specifically to keep "undesirables" from breeding. And to this day, Planned Parenthood still targets blacks and hispanics for abortions.

 

No, I want nothing to do with this "climate change" movement. It is a sucker's game and its only goal is government power and control.

He is a hypocrite. If he was serious about the environment he should have drove from the US to Europe in a Toyota Prius . That's how you got to Thailand, Right?

[Andreas2]

Let's assume that CO2 in the atmosphere was a problem and there was a technology that we have hardly ever heard of (in the MSM) in a constructive way, which could stop this "bad" CO2 output; What do you think about this technology?

As I already outed myself as a non-scientist, I'm really interested in your opinion/knowledge what you think/know about this.

Could this be an alternative to higher taxes... to fight "global warming"?

 

 

If "global warming" is regarded as the bigger threat to the world than ISIS, why doesn't the US government use the money (or at least a part of it), they use to fight ISIS, to further develop this option?

[Credo]

7 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

Let's assume that CO2 in the atmosphere was a problem and there was a technology that we have hardly ever heard of (in the MSM) in a constructive way, which could stop this "bad" CO2 output; What do you think about this technology?

As I already outed myself as a non-scientist, I'm really interested in your opinion/knowledge what you think/know about this.

Could this be an alternative to higher taxes... to fight "global warming"?

 

 

If "global warming" is regarded as the bigger threat to the world than ISIS, why doesn't the US government use the money (or at least a part of it), they use to fight ISIS, to further develop this option?

Comparing Climate Change to ISIS is like comparing road accidents to HIV.

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

Let's assume that CO2 in the atmosphere was a problem and there was a technology that we have hardly ever heard of (in the MSM) in a constructive way, which could stop this "bad" CO2 output; What do you think about this technology?

As I already outed myself as a non-scientist, I'm really interested in your opinion/knowledge what you think/know about this.

Could this be an alternative to higher taxes... to fight "global warming"?

 

 

If "global warming" is regarded as the bigger threat to the world than ISIS, why doesn't the US government use the money (or at least a part of it), they use to fight ISIS, to further develop this option?

Alex Jones?  Is that the best you can do?