New report on climate change released today

[Patooka]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

No one is say Trump caused climate change. It's his attitude towards climate change is fucked.

It would be like a doctor starts at a new hospital and points out, "Well, I didn't make these people ill so it's not my fucking problem" and your response is "Okay, that seems fair, that's a competent doctor".

 

[angelo]

Throughout human history there's always been the doomsayers. The New Testament as well as the old is full of them.
Today we have a bunch of them in outfits like the UN's IPPC who's every prediction of forthcoming doom have failed to materialise. Polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now not in the record numbers there are now.
Most Pacific islands were supposed to be under water by now not actually rising.
There were supposed to be millions of " Global Warm........oops, sorry, Climate change" refugees.
Here in Australia the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor government spent billions on desalination plants because a certain dickhead [ Flannery ] appointed by that incompetent government advised that because of global warming, rainfall would cease, and the Eastern Seaboard would have no fresh water. Nature's revenge was swift. All the dams actually overflowed and all the desalination plants are still placed in mothballs.
The Climategate scandals are still fresh in many people's memory, assuring that most people don't swallow all the hogwash.
By the way, I don't deny climate change. It happens, is happening and has always happened over the 4.5 billion years of the earth's existence and will do so for the rest of it's existence regardless of what it's inhabitants do or don't do.
Humans as well as all life adapts to conditions. Warming won't mean the extinction of any life on earth, but we're the Earth to tip the other way and head into another ice age all bets are off.
Remember that the greatest development of mankind happened in warming period, not in ice ages.

You've given me a great idea. I'm going to go see if I can find a forum with fewer twits like you and a worrying number of others. A rational forum maybe. Gotta be one, somewhere, surely. No, on second thoughts I'll stay here. I might not get to laugh as much somewhere else.

Why not try to defend the Al Gores of this world who've made millions out of the scam. Which disastrous prediction made in last two decades have eventuated? Can't think of any? What, there must be at least one surely!

 

[starwater]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

go bury your head in the sand angelo, and get your butt burned by the temperature increase - I don't really care. Continue to deny so you can keep your precious untruth so that you can continue to try and keep things always the same - because change scares the shit out of you. The rest of us will move forward with science and facts.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

go bury your head in the sand angelo, and get your butt burned by the temperature increase - I don't really care. Continue to deny so you can keep your precious untruth so that you can continue to try and keep things always the same - because change scares the shit out of you. The rest of us will move forward with science and facts.

Of course it's not a scam. Angelo knows that. No one's that daft. I believe he was just responding to my request for more humour.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

 

[starwater]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

No worries here - he is not a scientist and has taken credit for lots of stuff. I have no respect for him.

And thanks - I don't need you telling me what to do.

 

[untermensche]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

No one is say Trump caused climate change. It's his attitude towards climate change is fucked.

It would be like a doctor starts at a new hospital and points out, "Well, I didn't make these people ill so it's not my fucking problem" and your response is "Okay, that seems fair, that's a competent doctor".

Trump represents the mentality and class, the ultra-rich ruling class, that are keeping humanity from seriously addressing the problem.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

I'm baffled why people think pumping billions of tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year wouldn't affect the climate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Throughout human history there's always been the doomsayers. The New Testament as well as the old is full of them.
Today we have a bunch of them in outfits like the UN's IPPC who's every prediction of forthcoming doom have failed to materialise. Polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now not in the record numbers there are now.
Most Pacific islands were supposed to be under water by now not actually rising.
There were supposed to be millions of " Global Warm........oops, sorry, Climate change" refugees.
Here in Australia the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor government spent billions on desalination plants because a certain dickhead [ Flannery ] appointed by that incompetent government advised that because of global warming, rainfall would cease, and the Eastern Seaboard would have no fresh water. Nature's revenge was swift. All the dams actually overflowed and all the desalination plants are still placed in mothballs.
The Climategate scandals are still fresh in many people's memory, assuring that most people don't swallow all the hogwash.
By the way, I don't deny climate change. It happens, is happening and has always happened over the 4.5 billion years of the earth's existence and will do so for the rest of it's existence regardless of what it's inhabitants do or don't do.
Humans as well as all life adapts to conditions. Warming won't mean the extinction of any life on earth, but we're the Earth to tip the other way and head into another ice age all bets are off.
Remember that the greatest development of mankind happened in warming period, not in ice ages.

You've given me a great idea. I'm going to go see if I can find a forum with fewer twits like you and a worrying number of others. A rational forum maybe. Gotta be one, somewhere, surely. No, on second thoughts I'll stay here. I might not get to laugh as much somewhere else.

Why not try to defend the Al Gores of this world who've made millions out of the scam. Which disastrous prediction made in last two decades have eventuated? Can't think of any? What, there must be at least one surely!

Well, we aren't certain yet because it'll take time to determine trends, but the flooding in the Carolinas and Houston from the two lumbering hurricanes could be a signal of proven predictions, ie, is climate change modifying steering currents making hurricanes not just problematic from wind but from torrential rains due to the storm sticking around.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

Well, that'd be a good point if the data wasn't indicating the earth was indeed warming up.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

No worries here - he is not a scientist and has taken credit for lots of stuff. I have no respect for him.

And yet you cite him ? Weird.

 

[Elixir]

Well, that'd be a good point if the data wasn't indicating the earth was indeed warming up.

Fuck the data! Gore is an activist!
Plus... HILLARYMAILS!

 

[laughing dog]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

To be fair, you are not a scientist either. So we should be very wary what you say about climate change.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I love the "activist with an agenda" line. Yes, someone who cares about a specific issue is an activist who has an agenda. And? I do agree it would be hypocritical of him to use a private jet for travel, though, for example. In my opinion climate change activists should do as much as they possibly can to travel as little as possible. This also means David Attenborough should stop producing so many documentaries, as much as I enjoy them. It's just gratuitous at this point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I love the "activist with an agenda" line. Yes, someone who cares about a specific issue is an activist who has an agenda. And? I do agree it would be hypocritical of him to use a private jet for travel, though, for example. In my opinion climate change activists should do as much as they possibly can to travel as little as possible. This also means David Attenborough should stop producing so many documentaries, as much as I enjoy them. It's just gratuitous at this point.

The coal industry says that global warming is a lie. I don't care what that activist with an agenda says... I believe the coal companies!

 

[starwater]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist with an agenda. I'd be very wary of what that hypocrite says if I were you.

To be fair, you are not a scientist either. So we should be very wary what you say about climate change.

I am indeed a scientist and an excellent one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today. Otherwise the planet is in trouble and all life (even plants) are in peril.

And exactly how is that supposed to be done?

By reducing population until technology has the time to catch up. When it comes to dreaming about carbon control technology we can speculate. But birth control is something that can be done now.

1) Who select who lives and dies? Birth control isn't enough.

2) Your approach won't even work, you will slow scientific progress by at least as much as you lower the population. You drag out the endgame but you don't avert it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Aside from the fact that my posts were in the context of carbon emissions due to fossil fuels (and there is evidently a debate over what constitutes carbon/climate neutrality) going full-on carbon neutral would simply mean for every person to stop emitting greenhouse gasses. Stop driving a gas-powered car; convert your home to solar power; eat only locally sourced foods (and ensure the farms likewise are either carbon neutral or carbon offset), etc.

It is NOT possible.

It is not only possible, it's primarily a matter of buying every household solar panels and solar powered cars. That would be around $30,000 for a massively tricked out 10 kW house and solar car per household, which would actually only cost $3.8 Trillion, which, ironically, happens to be about the size of the US budget, or about $12,000 per person in America.

You're in lala land here.

You'll have a ton of power in the day, no power at night. There's no good storage system yet. You'll have a huge production of batteries--something that's nowhere near environmentally benign.

But, of course, that would only be a one-time expenditure and the savings--including our lives--would be enormous.

And those systems never wear out?

And they work everywhere, or do we have to abandon much of the world's land?

 

[ruby sparks]

Birth control isn't enough.

Enough for what?

You drag out the endgame but you don't avert it.

What endgame?

Imo, there is going to be a very bumpy ride. That's what's going to happen, at least if we look only as far as 2050 or 2100. There will almost certainly be humans in the year 2101. The question is, what will it be like for them (and for us in the interim)? There is no one measure which will make the ride bumpless. There are many levers which can be pulled. Technological solutions are fine in theory, but over those short timescales it is unlikely that the human emissions supertanker is going to be drastically turned around.

In reality, all measures, at least over the coming decades, are going to have gradual and partial effects. We should arguably stop thinking in terms of illusions about complete solutions, not least because some of the adverse effects are coming anyway, no matter what we do now. I think we are talking about incomplete solutions and mitigation. Voluntary family planning is no different in this broad sense. On the basis of unmet need, it is estimated to be able to result in a reduction of between 16 and 27% of the CO2 emissions that would result by 2050 without voluntary family planning, and more by 2100. That is a significant contribution. It is relatively cheap to do, requires no new technology and has already proven itself useful. And it is not restricted to underdeveloped countries, not when every child not born in for example the USA would have a CO2 contribution hundreds of times that of a child not born in several undeveloped countries.

The list of available and prospective options is not subtractive. Imo, there is no good enough reason voluntary family planning can't be added to all other available measures so that we can get the best sum total of all mitigations. The either (technology) or (population control) paradigm is a false dichotomy on a huge scale, as if one is the problem and not the other and we can afford to be laissez faire about either of them, and imo we should not be fighting over them and instead be advocating both. And indeed other measures, such as sustainable farming practices, conservation measures (including dealing with deforestation for example), lifestyle changes and so on.

And in this forum, the two (technology and population issues) seem (like many other things politically topical) to have been oddly reduced to taking on roles opposite each other in the somewhat parochial right versus left ding dong currently going on in US politics.

 

[Elixir]

You're in lala land here.

You'll have a ton of power in the day, no power at night. There's no good storage system yet. You'll have a huge production of batteries--something that's nowhere near environmentally benign.

But, of course, that would only be a one-time expenditure and the savings--including our lives--would be enormous.

And those systems never wear out?

And they work everywhere, or do we have to abandon much of the world's land?

It's always daytime on half of the globe, did you know?
So a bunch of wire, some satellite microwave relays.... piece-o-cake.

 

[Elixir]

To be fair, you are not a scientist either. So we should be very wary what you say about climate change.

I am indeed a scientist and an excellent one.

Yeah well, Trump says he has "a Great instinct for science". And he denies it. Very strongly.