New report on climate change released today

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought you guys were arguing that climate change is real, just not man made. Now you're arguing that there is no climate change and so no change in hurricanes in the aggregate?? That's unexpectedly irrational.

"Unexpectedly irrational" reflects that you might not have been paying attention to the feeble crap our climate change deniers have been regurgitating. It's standard fare, believe me.
See above where swizzle's only counter to FACTS is that the word "fact" is used to refer to FACTS. Talk about irrational!

I guess I meant unexpectedly for human beings generally...though that's probably not true either. People believe all sorts of weird things.

 

[AirPoh]

Sure it is.

Your faith based assertions and predictions of doom are not evidence.

I didn't predict anything. Just pointed out how you are wrong. Cropping the rest of my post is just more denial. A defensive coping mechanism for folks that are under stress.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sure it is.

Your faith based assertions and predictions of doom are not evidence.

I didn't predict anything.

Fair enough, predictions are not yours but you do seem to be agreeing with the predictions of climate doom and gloom.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't predict anything.

Fair enough, predictions are not yours but you do seem to be agreeing with the predictions of climate doom and gloom.

You seem very confused. If you agree that the planet is warming, then it means oceans are warming, which in turn means more ocean energy, which will result in increased frequency and strength of hurricanes. You don't have to believe in anthropogenic global warming for any of that to be true. What people said is that what we observe is consistent with such predictions. If you now want to claim that hurricanes are not more numerous, not stronger, then you are not an AGW denier, but instead a GW denier. Ultimately, this makes you a denier of reality and facts. That is getting disturbing. I mean, in your zeal to deny anything and everything even tangentially related to AGW, are you next going to deny you live on planet Earth?

 

[AirPoh]

I didn't predict anything.

Fair enough, predictions are not yours but you do seem to be agreeing with the predictions of climate doom and gloom.

Cropping the rest of my post is just more denial. A defensive coping mechanism for folks that are under stress. Do the predictions of climate doom and gloom frighten you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This debate is going nowhere. Climate relates to prevailing conditions in a region over time, not the extremes of weather whose unpredictability will always be with us.

There is no question that climate changes. It has changed over millions of years, long before the presence of Hono Sapien Sapiens on Earth, sometimes radically, [interglacial ice-ages] but for as long as this planet exists, ongoing, even if humanity ceased to use all fossil fuels tomorrow,

it wouldn't make one iota of difference, except to bring to a shuddering halt all development to the third world's economies.

You seem to think that proving there is natural climate change means there is no man-made climate change. It doesn't work that way--we can work out the natural factors pretty well and they don't explain the overall rise. They do, however, do a pretty good job of explaining the noise in the line that your side keeps reporting as the warming has stopped--until the next time the natural factors are pointing up and we set new records. (See, for example, 1998 and 2016.)

And you've never addressed the greenhouse effect that keeps Earth reasonable:

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/greenhouse-effect

(Note that this says 33C, considerably more than the number I was giving. Somebody's guilty of a F-C unit error, I'm not sure who at present.)

 

[repoman]

good lecture

 

[TSwizzle]

Do the predictions of climate doom and gloom frighten you?

Not at all. They amuse me more than anything else.

These prophesies of doom really is a religion, it's like hoping for the Resurrection again.

 

[AirPoh]

Do the predictions of climate doom and gloom frighten you?

Not at all. They amuse me more than anything else.

These prophesies of doom really is a religion, it's like hoping for the Resurrection again.

Then why call them gloom and doom?

 

[angelo]

This debate is going nowhere. Climate relates to prevailing conditions in a region over time, not the extremes of weather whose unpredictability will always be with us.

There is no question that climate changes. It has changed over millions of years, long before the presence of Hono Sapien Sapiens on Earth, sometimes radically, [interglacial ice-ages] but for as long as this planet exists, ongoing, even if humanity ceased to use all fossil fuels tomorrow,

it wouldn't make one iota of difference, except to bring to a shuddering halt all development to the third world's economies.

Glad to see deniers getting half a clue. It took decades for the problem to show it's face, it will decades for it to go away. At this point the difference we need to make is not for us. It's for our children's children.

Oh, it's our children's children future now is it? What happened to the dire predictions that we had around five years left [ back in the late 1980"s] to either cut emissions or face catastrophic consequences? New York City, or even Venice were supposed to be inundated by seawater 20 years ago!

 

[angelo]

This debate is going nowhere. Climate relates to prevailing conditions in a region over time, not the extremes of weather whose unpredictability will always be with us.

There is no question that climate changes. It has changed over millions of years, long before the presence of Hono Sapien Sapiens on Earth, sometimes radically, [interglacial ice-ages] but for as long as this planet exists, ongoing, even if humanity ceased to use all fossil fuels tomorrow,

it wouldn't make one iota of difference, except to bring to a shuddering halt all development to the third world's economies.

You seem to think that proving there is natural climate change means there is no man-made climate change. It doesn't work that way--we can work out the natural factors pretty well and they don't explain the overall rise. They do, however, do a pretty good job of explaining the noise in the line that your side keeps reporting as the warming has stopped--until the next time the natural factors are pointing up and we set new records. (See, for example, 1998 and 2016.)

And you've never addressed the greenhouse effect that keeps Earth reasonable:

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/greenhouse-effect

(Note that this says 33C, considerably more than the number I was giving. Somebody's guilty of a F-C unit error, I'm not sure who at present.)

I lean towards the [real ]scientific consensus that says that perhaps at worst, human activity may be responsible for 0.03 % of GW/CC over the past century!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This debate is going nowhere. Climate relates to prevailing conditions in a region over time, not the extremes of weather whose unpredictability will always be with us.

There is no question that climate changes. It has changed over millions of years, long before the presence of Hono Sapien Sapiens on Earth, sometimes radically, [interglacial ice-ages] but for as long as this planet exists, ongoing, even if humanity ceased to use all fossil fuels tomorrow,

it wouldn't make one iota of difference, except to bring to a shuddering halt all development to the third world's economies.

Glad to see deniers getting half a clue. It took decades for the problem to show it's face, it will decades for it to go away. At this point the difference we need to make is not for us. It's for our children's children.

Oh, it's our children's children future now is it? What happened to the dire predictions that we had around five years left [ back in the late 1980"s] to either cut emissions or face catastrophic consequences? New York City, or even Venice were supposed to be inundated by seawater 20 years ago!

We actually did a lot since the 80's so your conclusion is irrational, but even so we still got hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/katrina-was-climate-change-to-blame-19377

 

[bleubird]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
Tell me again how we have no effect on the environment .

 

[TSwizzle]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
Tell me again how we have no effect on the environment .

Teh Gruaniad at it again;

Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'

'Insects could vanish'

The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.


A Rapture like cult.

 

[bilby]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
Tell me again how we have no effect on the environment .

Teh Gruaniad at it again;

Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'

'Insects could vanish'

The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.


A Rapture like cult.

There's undoubtedly a lot of hype. But that just means you need to put in the effort to separate fact from hype. It doesn't excuse your lazy rejection of anything you dislike as 'hype', without having studied the underlying evidence.



There's a very large, and potentially lethal, gulf between 'Much of the reporting of this subject is hyperbole' and 'This entire problem is fictional'. It's easy to score cheap debating points by pointing to hype in the media. But that's not actually a rebuttal of the evidence that shows unequivocally that humans are causing rates of climatic change not seen since long before our species evolved. Nor does it demonstrate that such drastic changes are unworthy of our deep concern.

All it really does is identify you as too lazy to find out what is real, and what is hype.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This debate is going nowhere. Climate relates to prevailing conditions in a region over time, not the extremes of weather whose unpredictability will always be with us.

There is no question that climate changes. It has changed over millions of years, long before the presence of Hono Sapien Sapiens on Earth, sometimes radically, [interglacial ice-ages] but for as long as this planet exists, ongoing, even if humanity ceased to use all fossil fuels tomorrow,

it wouldn't make one iota of difference, except to bring to a shuddering halt all development to the third world's economies.

You seem to think that proving there is natural climate change means there is no man-made climate change. It doesn't work that way--we can work out the natural factors pretty well and they don't explain the overall rise. They do, however, do a pretty good job of explaining the noise in the line that your side keeps reporting as the warming has stopped--until the next time the natural factors are pointing up and we set new records. (See, for example, 1998 and 2016.)

And you've never addressed the greenhouse effect that keeps Earth reasonable:

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/greenhouse-effect

(Note that this says 33C, considerably more than the number I was giving. Somebody's guilty of a F-C unit error, I'm not sure who at present.)

I lean towards the [real ]scientific consensus that says that perhaps at worst, human activity may be responsible for 0.03 % of GW/CC over the past century!

You still aren't addressing this inconvenient truth.

And where's this "consensus"? Is that some consensus of deniers, perhaps?

 

[angelo]

Oh, it's our children's children future now is it? What happened to the dire predictions that we had around five years left [ back in the late 1980"s] to either cut emissions or face catastrophic consequences? New York City, or even Venice were supposed to be inundated by seawater 20 years ago!

We actually did a lot since the 80's so your conclusion is irrational, but even so we still got hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/katrina-was-climate-change-to-blame-19377

That was the beauty of getting rid of the moniker global warming and substituting it with Climate Change. every natural bad weather event can and is blamed on it! I'm wearing a huge grin as I'm typing this!

 

[angelo]

I lean towards the [real ]scientific consensus that says that perhaps at worst, human activity may be responsible for 0.03 % of GW/CC over the past century!

You still aren't addressing this inconvenient truth.

And where's this "consensus"? Is that some consensus of deniers, perhaps?

Iv'e already re-posted the wiki source three times! How many more times do I have to post it?

 

[angelo]

Dr Bjorn Lomborg [ more times than not is accused of being a denier of GW/CC cult by it's adherents]. A former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute, has produced studies [ not denied by climatologists] revealing that, to adopt all of the 2015 Paris climate summit proposals by 2030, will cost between $US 924 billion and $ US 2 trillion depending on government efficiency. This will reduce the global temperature in 2100 by a measly 0.05 degrees C. The US has had the good sense to withdraw from this sham, thereby assuring that the summit's goals won't be achieved. The biggest users of fossil fuels, India, China and Russia refuse [and rightly so] IPCC inspectors and have no intention of stopping their massive building of cheap reliable and efficient coal-fired power plants. Only a handful of dumber countries are still squandering taxes on expensive, unrealiable renewables.

Meanwhile Locally in Australia the socialist Labor party most likely to win the next federal election, has a renewables target of 50% which will cost Australians $AUD86 billion, or $600 a year on average Australian families already high $1600 electricity bill. The Greens who may well end up with the balance of power want 70% renewables. Neither will make one iota of difference to GW/CC!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh, it's our children's children future now is it? What happened to the dire predictions that we had around five years left [ back in the late 1980"s] to either cut emissions or face catastrophic consequences? New York City, or even Venice were supposed to be inundated by seawater 20 years ago!

We actually did a lot since the 80's so your conclusion is irrational, but even so we still got hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/katrina-was-climate-change-to-blame-19377

That was the beauty of getting rid of the moniker global warming and substituting it with Climate Change. every natural bad weather event can and is blamed on it! I'm wearing a huge grin as I'm typing this!

Instead of grinning you should focus on logic: global warming means more ocean energy which means more frequent and stronger hurricanes.