New report on climate change released today

[AirPoh]

It's amazing how few of the deniers have credentials in any way related to understanding the actual problem.

Considering you don't need credentials to post stupid things on the internet, it's not really that amazing.

 

[untermensche]

There are corporate perks to coming to the conclusion that the corporate structure is doing no harm.

 

[Tammuz]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

 

[Tammuz]

Sorry, but you're the one being dumb here--you didn't read what I actually wrote.

I oppose both Kyoto and Paris because I consider them exercises in pretending do something rather than actually dealing with the problem. There are times that a half-assed "solution" is worse than none at all and this is such a case.

What do you think should be done?

IMO, there can't be one single solution. We need to reduce eating of red meat and diary products. We need government treaties that commit to reducing emissions. We need technological development for cleaner energy and infrastructure. Solutions have to come from all corners, the more the better.

And we need to stop the idiocy of organic farming. There are no health benefits from it, and it is very inefficient, requiring more land to produce enough food, thereby increasing the human environmental footprint.

Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same

 

[Elixir]

...we need to stop the idiocy of organic farming. There are no health benefits from it, and it is very inefficient, requiring more land to produce enough food, thereby increasing the human environmental footprint.

Organic farming is not nearly as harmful as monoculture - to the environment, and to the quality of produce.

 

[Tammuz]

Organic farming is still a useless waste. The urgency of climate change to me indicates that it should be banned. We simply can't afford to use land this way. Unfortunately it won't be banned anytime soon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but you're the one being dumb here--you didn't read what I actually wrote.

I oppose both Kyoto and Paris because I consider them exercises in pretending do something rather than actually dealing with the problem. There are times that a half-assed "solution" is worse than none at all and this is such a case.

What do you think should be done?

A worldwide tax on greenhouse gas emissions, including by removal of vegetation.

IMO, there can't be one single solution. We need to reduce eating of red meat and diary products. We need government treaties that commit to reducing emissions. We need technological development for cleaner energy and infrastructure. Solutions have to come from all corners, the more the better.

No--we need to go after the fundamental issue, greenhouse gases. Don't try to dictate proxies, that's always inefficient.

And we need to stop the idiocy of organic farming. There are no health benefits from it, and it is very inefficient, requiring more land to produce enough food, thereby increasing the human environmental footprint.

Agreed, although again that's a proxy, not the root problem. Go after the land clearance, not the specific use of the cleared land.

- - - Updated - - -

...we need to stop the idiocy of organic farming. There are no health benefits from it, and it is very inefficient, requiring more land to produce enough food, thereby increasing the human environmental footprint.

Organic farming is not nearly as harmful as monoculture - to the environment, and to the quality of produce.

Organic farming doesn't mean it's not monoculture.

 

[angelo]

Organic farming is still a useless waste. The urgency of climate change to me indicates that it should be banned. We simply can't afford to use land this way. Unfortunately it won't be banned anytime soon.

The urgency of climate change? Well, if the urgency is anything like the doomsday predictions made in the past four decades, you have absolutely nothing to fear! 40 years ago a prediction was made that we had 5 years to fix it or else. 5 years went by with no sign of doomsday, so another 5 years was added, and still no doomsday, then another and another. What's the estimate now, 2030? See how the predictions are getting longer and longer? Yet mother nature does what it's always done, and continue to do........evolve! Meanwhile, the UN and it's Fabian socialist agenda of transferring wealth to climate change threatened third world countries continues unabated, in fact with even more urgency. The Maldives government even pulled off a stunt some time time ago of having a cabinet meeting under water to show what was about to befall the low laying islands. Last I looked, the Maldives and all other low laying islands are still there, in fact some have actually increased in size.

 

[repoman]

I will repeat this hypothetical:

If there is a real problem (in this hypothetical) and there are people and organizations that have financial scams and/or push crap ideology through this problem that does not make the problem less real.

Al Gore and people pushing for a carbon trading system that is inclined for fraud have zero bearing on whether climate change is happening. That is a logical fallacy.

What does 406 ppm of carbon dioxide mean?

 

[TSwizzle]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented. I get a sense of desperation from these climate extremists. The BBC really has gone downhill.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I will repeat this hypothetical:

If there is a real problem (in this hypothetical) and there are people and organizations that have financial scams and/or push crap ideology through this problem that does not make the problem less real.

Al Gore and people pushing for a carbon trading system that is inclined for fraud have zero bearing on whether climate change is happening. That is a logical fallacy.

What does 406 ppm of carbon dioxide mean?

Also, what if it turns out that we're completely wrong about how bad global warming might be.

We'll only wind up with cleaner water, cleaner air, better renewable energy. I mean, that would be tragic right? Fighting against this is pure political ideology based on a bunch of bullshit that is continually circulated by the (f)rightwing media.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented.

NASA evidence:

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

 

[TSwizzle]

And WTF is going on with Dr Beard's eyes ?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented. I get a sense of desperation from these climate extremists. The BBC really has gone downhill.

While it's not catastrophic these two images make it very clear that there are big changes:

This is how I recall it (I was there in 1982):



And here's a more modern picture:

 

[angelo]

I will repeat this hypothetical:

If there is a real problem (in this hypothetical) and there are people and organizations that have financial scams and/or push crap ideology through this problem that does not make the problem less real.

Al Gore and people pushing for a carbon trading system that is inclined for fraud have zero bearing on whether climate change is happening. That is a logical fallacy.

What does 406 ppm of carbon dioxide mean?

Also, what if it turns out that we're completely wrong about how bad global warming might be.

We'll only wind up with cleaner water, cleaner air, better renewable energy. I mean, that would be tragic right? Fighting against this is pure political ideology based on a bunch of bullshit that is continually circulated by the (f)rightwing media.

Yea, what could possibly go wrong! How about a quadrupling of power prices for a start. There are millions of pensioners and poor people on fixed income now who can't afford to switch on a heater or air con. Regardless of what the watermelons tell you about renewable power, it's not sustainable without huge government [taxpayer] subsidies. There are no cheaper alternatives to coal, nuclear or other fossil fuels for power generation for the foreseeable future.

There's also this inconvenient truth of the matter. Were 100% of humanity killed off, it would mean just around 3% less CO2 [a plant food] in the Earth's atmosphere. I repeat, that long before humanity appeared on this planet, the CO2 in the atmosphere was at times 100 times higher than it is today.

 

[angelo]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented. I get a sense of desperation from these climate extremists. The BBC really has gone downhill.

Iv'e already asked the zealot warmists here to cite just one catastrophic event predicted by the "consensus" due to climate change that's happened. I'm still waiting for an example!

 

[angelo]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented. I get a sense of desperation from these climate extremists. The BBC really has gone downhill.

While it's not catastrophic these two images make it very clear that there are big changes:

This is how I recall it (I was there in 1982):

View attachment 19394

And here's a more modern picture:

Ice retreats in Summer and expands in Winter! Some Winters as well as some Summers are more extreme than usual. But that's hardly due to the climate change cult.

 

[barbos]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ1HRGA8g10

That Trumpist guy, and the very bad prospects for 2100. I wish I could share the optimism of the studio guests.

A lot of chatter about climate catastrophe already happening, zero evidence presented. I get a sense of desperation from these climate extremists. The BBC really has gone downhill.

Iv'e already asked the zealot warmists here to cite just one catastrophic event predicted by the "consensus" due to climate change that's happened. I'm still waiting for an example!

Thats's retarded.

 

[angelo]

Iv'e already asked the zealot warmists here to cite just one catastrophic event predicted by the "consensus" due to climate change that's happened. I'm still waiting for an example!

Thats's retarded.

Expecting an example is retarded? 40 years ago it was predicted humans had 5 years to do something about global warming, as it was then known. Or the Earth would suffer non reversible doomsday. There would be an ice free North Pole and all of Greenland's ice would be a distant memory with the sea rising 20 feet flooding most of the coastal cities of the planet. How's all that going?

 

[bilby]

Irukandji jellyfish now found farther south than ever before, threatening the lucrative tourist industry in South East Queensland.