Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
^ That's bollocks, like a creationist denying evolution. You should reconsider your sources.
BTW increased snow mass is an artifact of more water in the atmosphere and that's a artifact of more heat.
So not of drought then; which science has in any case shown is not climate change derived.
More warmth, more water, more Co2 mean more food. Is it really an emergency?
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
^ That's bollocks, like a creationist denying evolution. You should reconsider your sources.
BTW increased snow mass is an artifact of more water in the atmosphere and that's a artifact of more heat.
I am happy to look at and assess on merits any source. I have read quite widely on the topic and my views are backed by the science. If you are referencing the sources I linked to support the points I raised, they are all government sites, I have no reason to question them but will if you have any reasons to suggest they are incorrect.
Regarding your statement on water vapour, it can be true in localised situations but is not a reliable measure over a planet in a chaotic system like the planets atmosphere. Last year was globally hotter than this year but had no where near as much snow mass accumulation, so it doesn't really correlate, nor should it. If your statement was correct it would mean more snow the hotter it got, which is plainly nonsense.
To use your anology I would suggest climate alarmists are more like creationists denying evolution. Never let inconvenient things like hard facts or lack of them stand in the way of a solid belief.
Select to expand quoteMarvin said..
I'm not going to argue on this. One partial set of 'facts' may be as salient as, or more telling, than mine. That's the trouble with all these complex issues, our bounded understanding means that it's impossible to tell what is right and wrong. So we fall back on our frames and cognitive biases.
All I can say is, from my experience, that 'things are crook in Tallarook'. Yes, it's intuitive - but that's my judgement.
Geoengineering - a fancy word for weather modification.
Chemtrails and Haarp are real not theory.
It seems the wind and solar industries have done an incredibly good job of fostering the belief that taking action to reduce carbon emissions, and building wind and solar farms, are the same thing. As though a whole lot of big corporations have said "Right, there is a huge level of global sentiment towards taking action on climate change. How can we monetise this?"
It's as plain as the nose on your face that you can't change the temperature with wind & solar, but ask a school-kid or watch the ABC and you wouldn't know that. It's a con.
We don't have a replacement for fossil fuels - that's the truth. Maybe it's nuclear...just maybe.
Select to expand quoteMarvin said..Paradox said..Marvin said..
He makes some big claims. For example, according to his Australian article, among other listed falsehoods, he claims " Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"".
Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I haven't read his book, but that is a big disparity. Somebody is making stuff up? The trouble I find with all this complex science stuff, who to believe?
I think it comes down to the alarmist reporting and fear over facts and the purposefull twisting of wording and messaging to give an impression things are very different to what they really are.
For example your post statement "Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:" is wrong. That article talks about population loss, not species extintion. I am willing to bet that species extintion is what you got from reading the article, rather than population decline, and that is the problem as thats what they wanted you to read.
I doubt anyone would argue that humans are impacting and causing change to environments that is causing species extinction above the normal "background" rate that would be expected. However a mass extinction means more that 75% of the worlds species are gone and we are no were near that.
There is also good argument that the efforts we are making now to conserve and protect habitats and species is also making a huge difference in slowing or reversing the population decline and increased rate of species loss.
Thanks for that correction - yes I misinterpreted the statement.
That said, I'm still alarmed, and I think rightly so. Here's a meta report which provides sobering stats:
Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Quoting that article:"More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century."
On that data - if correct! - it is reasonable to infer a mass extinction is imminent, unless the trends reverse.
its true that climate change is not the main driver (yet). It is suggested to be monoculture and pesticides.
But climate change is a slow moving phenomenon, and we don't know when key tipping points will trigger - like the release of frozen methane in the oceans and tundra, or the decline of the Atlantic warm current (that keeps Europe relatively warm).
It is pretty obvious the earth is warming. Just look at glacial retreat. Close to home, the ocean off WA is 1.5 degrees warmer than average. More broadly, the change in Australia's rainfall patterns are entirely consistent with what the climate models predict.
Human activity is the most likely cause of climate change. (I don't tend to believe what deniers like Plimer say - its not out of our hands).
And so Australia burns - we enter the 'pyrocene':
theconversation.com/california-wildfires-signal-the-arrival-of-a-planetary-fire-age-125972
i think the Thunberg point is that our children will remember this profligate, indulgent, narcissistic generation for that which we are.
We could take action now - there is a choice.
But the reality is that we won't - the smoking gun will come too late for us to really change our behaviour, given the lags. Zooming out, it is what it is. Everything passes, including, this brief era of civil wealth. It's a very thin and fragile veneer.
Very well said Marvin.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this.Marvin said..AGW
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, yes it would seem the only thing that's really changed in line with global temperature increases is greenhouse gases and the feedback that causes.
It comes back to same old assertion you make Paradox - that there's no evidence, when in fact there is.
It would be extraordinary to believe that the current warming trend just happens to coincide with an era of the greatest industrialisation the planet has seen, but that's exactly the sort of thing we are accustomed to hearing from those who work to muddy the prevailing science of the day.
So in summary, yes no one here is claiming there's an emergency, but only someone in denial would claim there's no evidence the humans are causing a large part of the current warming.
The topic is therefore relatively, pointless.
Select to expand quoteMarvin said..
I'm not going to argue on this. One partial set of 'facts' may be as salient as, or more telling, than mine. That's the trouble with all these complex issues, our bounded understanding means that it's impossible to tell what is right and wrong. So we fall back on our frames and cognitive biases.
All I can say is, from my experience, that 'things are crook in Tallarook'. Yes, it's intuitive - but that's my judgement.
I am with you, although there is only one set of facts, interpreting them and cutting through the spin (alarmist or denier) is whats hard.
Long term climate change is not something an individual can assess through experience. It has to be done over decades of data on nothing less than a continental scale.
I don't discount your experiences on a personal level, but they mean nothing in a scientific context.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this.Marvin said..AGW
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, yes it would seem the only thing that's really changed in line with global temperature increases is greenhouse gases and the feedback that causes.
It comes back to same old assertion you make Paradox - that there's no evidence, when in fact there is.
It would be extraordinary to believe that the current warming trend just happens to coincide with an era of the greatest industrialisation the planet has seen, but that's exactly the sort of thing we are accustomed to hearing from those who work to muddy the prevailing science of the day.
So in summary, yes no one here is claiming there's an emergency, but only someone in denial would claim there's no evidence the humans are causing a large part of the current warming.
The topic is therefore relatively, pointless.
Please don't quote me and then argue something else.
My comment was that there was no compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for observed warming. ie a strong fact based theory that holds up to all tests and has no equally compelling alternative theory.
I did not say there was no evidence at all, as you assert. There is little dissent that humans and CO2 and maybe other human caused mechanisms are contributing in some degree to global warming. It's the magnitude of that contribution that we don't know and there is significant debate in the science field on the order of magnitude of that contribution.
The whole point of the original post was that Schellingberger is saying there is no emergency (which I am glad you agree with) and that the current environmental movement has the wrong focus. Alarmism with untruths and exxageration is wrong. The war on the poor and developing nations is wrong. Try this for a read, it sums it up very well.
www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/06/18/the_green_civil_war_496728.html
So yes, your topic is pointless, mine is not.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..My comment was that there was no compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for observed warming. ie a strong fact based theory that holds up to all tests and has no equally compelling alternative theory.holy guacamole said..Paradox said..You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this.
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, yes it would seem the only thing that's really changed in line with global temperature increases is greenhouse gases and the feedback that causes.
It comes back to same old assertion you make Paradox - that there's no evidence, when in fact there is.
It would be extraordinary to believe that the current warming trend just happens to coincide with an era of the greatest industrialisation the planet has seen, but that's exactly the sort of thing we are accustomed to hearing from those who work to muddy the prevailing science of the day.
So in summary, yes no one here is claiming there's an emergency, but only someone in denial would claim there's no evidence the humans are causing a large part of the current warming.
The topic is therefore relatively, pointless.
I disagree. You argue on semantics again.
There is compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for the current warming - and there's far less compelling evidence to the contrary.
We see a clear correlation between rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases and temperature. Radiative forcing analysis demonstrates that greenhouse gases have provided the bulk of this warming. This is the basis of science. Develop a hypothesis and demonstrate it over and over again with analysis.
Now you say Paradox that you take careful note of the science, but in truth if you did you wouldn't deny the IPCC findings which you've disputed several times. Instead, you make the claim that the warming we see is largely natural, but provide NO compelling evidence to support your claim.
I ask you again, where is your "compelling" evidence that the current warming trend trend is largely natural? Show us the analysis and the measurements. Explain the natural systems you are referring to and how scientists have apportioned the approx. 1.0 degree warming to those natural phenomena.
You can't claim there's debate about the cause, and then not provide any scientifically rigorous evidence that what we observe is largely natural. Natural warming happened in the past obviously, but claiming it's mostly natural right now, just on this fact alone is very sloppy.
...and it's hypocrisy.
I'm all ears.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..My comment was that there was no compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for observed warming. ie a strong fact based theory that holds up to all tests and has no equally compelling alternative theory.holy guacamole said..Paradox said..You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this.
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, yes it would seem the only thing that's really changed in line with global temperature increases is greenhouse gases and the feedback that causes.
It comes back to same old assertion you make Paradox - that there's no evidence, when in fact there is.
It would be extraordinary to believe that the current warming trend just happens to coincide with an era of the greatest industrialisation the planet has seen, but that's exactly the sort of thing we are accustomed to hearing from those who work to muddy the prevailing science of the day.
So in summary, yes no one here is claiming there's an emergency, but only someone in denial would claim there's no evidence the humans are causing a large part of the current warming.
The topic is therefore relatively, pointless.
I disagree. You argue on semantics again.
There is compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for the current warming - and there's far less compelling evidence to the contrary.
We see a clear correlation between rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases and temperature. Radiative forcing analysis demonstrates that greenhouse gases have provided the bulk of this warming. This is the basis of science. Develop a hypothesis and demonstrate it over and over again with analysis.
Now you say Paradox that you take careful note of the science, but in truth if you did you wouldn't deny the IPCC findings which you've disputed several times. Instead, you make the claim that the warming we see is largely natural, but provide NO compelling evidence to support your claim.
I ask you again, where is your "compelling" evidence that the current warming trend trend is largely natural? Show us the analysis and the measurements. Explain the natural systems you are referring to and how scientists have apportioned the approx. 1.0 degree warming to those natural phenomena.
You can't claim there's debate about the cause, and then not provide any scientifically rigorous evidence that what we observe is largely natural. Natural warming happened in the past obviously, but claiming it's mostly natural right now, just on this fact alone is very sloppy.
...and it's hypocrisy.
I'm all ears.
You're probably a bit more of a scientist than me Guac but my take from the below article is that carbon emissions dropped around 20% during covid while the atmospheric co2 stayed it's course which implies to me that humans make **** all difference.
Not that I'm suggesting co2 has anything to do with global warming. I've got no idea
amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/04/atmospheric-co2-levels-rise-sharply-despite-covid-19-lockdowns?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15939147464406&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2020%2Fjun%2F04%2Fatmospheric-co2-levels-rise-sharply-despite-covid-19-lockdowns
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
You really could have condensed all that by saying
"+1 for alarmists"
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
You're claiming an echo chamber for climate "deniers", but those institutions you listed all rely on the same sources...
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
You seem to have missed the start of this thread which were a couple of well known scientific climate pushers and agitators coming out and 'admitting' the whole alarmist thing was completely overblown.
But the other fallacy in your comment was the usual alarmist one of labeling anyone wanting to talk about the issue rationally instead of accepting the full blown alarmist story as a denier.
Older folks living by the sea or the river will tell you there has been no increase in the water level period.
Then again older folks are all senile and their opinion counts for nothing - a cultists perspective.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..My comment was that there was no compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for observed warming. ie a strong fact based theory that holds up to all tests and has no equally compelling alternative theory.holy guacamole said..Paradox said..You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this.
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, yes it would seem the only thing that's really changed in line with global temperature increases is greenhouse gases and the feedback that causes.
It comes back to same old assertion you make Paradox - that there's no evidence, when in fact there is.
It would be extraordinary to believe that the current warming trend just happens to coincide with an era of the greatest industrialisation the planet has seen, but that's exactly the sort of thing we are accustomed to hearing from those who work to muddy the prevailing science of the day.
So in summary, yes no one here is claiming there's an emergency, but only someone in denial would claim there's no evidence the humans are causing a large part of the current warming.
The topic is therefore relatively, pointless.
I disagree. You argue on semantics again.
There is compelling evidence that humans are predominantly responsible for the current warming - and there's far less compelling evidence to the contrary.
We see a clear correlation between rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases and temperature. Radiative forcing analysis demonstrates that greenhouse gases have provided the bulk of this warming. This is the basis of science. Develop a hypothesis and demonstrate it over and over again with analysis.
Now you say Paradox that you take careful note of the science, but in truth if you did you wouldn't deny the IPCC findings which you've disputed several times. Instead, you make the claim that the warming we see is largely natural, but provide NO compelling evidence to support your claim.
I ask you again, where is your "compelling" evidence that the current warming trend trend is largely natural? Show us the analysis and the measurements. Explain the natural systems you are referring to and how scientists have apportioned the approx. 1.0 degree warming to those natural phenomena.
You can't claim there's debate about the cause, and then not provide any scientifically rigorous evidence that what we observe is largely natural. Natural warming happened in the past obviously, but claiming it's mostly natural right now, just on this fact alone is very sloppy.
...and it's hypocrisy.
I'm all ears.
You're probably a bit more of a scientist than me Guac but my take from the below article is that carbon emissions dropped around 20% during covid while the atmospheric co2 stayed it's course which implies to me that humans make **** all difference.
Not that I'm suggesting co2 has anything to do with global warming. I've got no idea
amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/04/atmospheric-co2-levels-rise-sharply-despite-covid-19-lockdowns?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15939147464406&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2020%2Fjun%2F04%2Fatmospheric-co2-levels-rise-sharply-despite-covid-19-lockdowns
That's because such things take far longer than a few months to take full effect.
I would say if the Covid-Recession lasts long enough and the GHG emissions stay low with it, then a drop in greenhouse gases followed by a period of cooling with be another nail in the AGW denier's coffin.
Select to expand quoteTamble said..Heisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
You seem to have missed the start of this thread which were a couple of well known scientific climate pushers and agitators coming out and 'admitting' the whole alarmist thing was completely overblown.
But the other fallacy in your comment was the usual alarmist one of labeling anyone wanting to talk about the issue rationally instead of accepting the full blown alarmist story as a denier.
It's a choice to take any extremist views seriously.
Why AGW deniers choose to focus on the extremist view probably says a lot about their baseless prejudices.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Heisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
You're claiming an echo chamber for climate "deniers", but those institutions you listed all rely on the same sources...
Yeah...scientists....not disinformants working for Enron or Murdoch or GE....
Select to expand quotehiho said..
Hangin' on by your fingernails there Guac
He gave me the same angle Al Gore gave. It's gonna happen, just wait a bit longer, the polar ice caps must be all gone by now
Science does not support the alarmists
Human impact on the climate is minor
We are living a partial implementation of the 'new green deal'. Times this pain by 5 fold before we might be getting somewhat near the alarmist utopia.
All pain, little to no gain
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Yeah...scientists....not disinformants working for Enron or Murdoch or GE....
Different argument, that is.
But do tell us about your conspiracy theories, Pete.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I would say if the Covid-Recession lasts long enough and the GHG emissions stay low with it, then a drop in greenhouse gases followed by a period of cooling with be another nail in the AGW denier's coffin.
So how long would the Covid-recession have to last such that if we don't get a period of cooling we could put a nail in the AGW alarmists' coffin?
a. ! year,
b. 10 years
c. 100 years
d. none of the above.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..holy guacamole said..
I would say if the Covid-Recession lasts long enough and the GHG emissions stay low with it, then a drop in greenhouse gases followed by a period of cooling with be another nail in the AGW denier's coffin.
So how long would the Covid-recession have to last such that if we don't get a period of cooling we could put a nail in the AGW alarmists' coffin?
a. ! year,
b. 10 years
c. 100 years
d. none of the above.
How would I know! That's why we have proper scientists looking at this stuff and not paradox or IanK.
Of course, if the cooling was observed, the deniers would simply say again, without a shred of evidence as they do now, that it's all mostly natural....
It's like religion - no evidence required to substantiate a hypothesis.
"Oh it's only natural blah blah blah..."
"`Have faith!"
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..You're claiming an echo chamber for climate "deniers", but those institutions you listed all rely on the same sources...Heisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
Mmm yes. They rely on scientists. Amazing.
Oh wait...sorry...I forgot that all those institutions are in on the leftist conspiracy.
Their data has been gotten to on many different fronts.
From the article....
but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,' said The Lancet's editor-in-chief, Richard Horton."
www.rt.com/op-ed/493732-big-pharma-pandemic-covid/
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Their data has been gotten to on many different fronts.
From the article....
but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,' said The Lancet's editor-in-chief, Richard Horton."
www.rt.com/op-ed/493732-big-pharma-pandemic-covid/
You see folks...it's all a conspiracy and the Russians State media has exposed it!
You can go about your business as usual. In fact burn more fossil fuels forever! It's natural. No problem.
Everything's fine. 
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Their data has been gotten to on many different fronts.
From the article....
but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,' said The Lancet's editor-in-chief, Richard Horton."
www.rt.com/op-ed/493732-big-pharma-pandemic-covid/
What has this got to do with "Crying Wolf over Climate Change" peter?
As for your link as soon as i opened it I recognised the name "Malcolm Kendrick" and didn't bother going any further.
You have dragged another quack out of the pond to support a conspiracy totally unrelated to the thread you are posting in. Are you really this stupid or are you the best troll in internet history? For those unfamiliar with Dr Malcolm Kendrick here's a brief rundown on the 'gentleman' it's no wonder peter gravitates towards these clowns.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Malcolm_Kendrick
