climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[slide]

climate talks open as point of no return looms , politicians and diplomats meet in spain as scientists and charities say urgent steps needed COP25 talks
and a fact for my climate change friends -we have 10 years to halve emissions

So how many times have we passed this "point of no return", or "the climate tipping point" or the end of the world as we know it?

My guess is about half a dozen times, and that's just with anthropogenic global warming.

The world was supposed to have ended because of famine caused by overpopulation, soot blocking out the sun causing a new ice age, the bees disappearing, nuclear war, alar causing cancer...

So when is it REALLY going to happen, this end of the world?

saulohio, you could get yourself to madrid tomorrow and tell the 200 world leaders there is nothing to worry about ,they've got it wrong , because you know better ..... ...……..and to prove it you have put this video up

[marlboroughman]

world leaders

are busy making sure their children become millionaires because central banks printed so much money there isn't a profession left to get them anywhere.

[SaulOhio]

saulohio, you could get yourself to madrid tomorrow and tell the 200 world leaders there is nothing to worry about ,they've got it wrong , because you know better ..... ...……..and to prove it you have put this video up

Oh yeah. All those wise and benevolent world leaders who keep getting us into wars and mess up world trade with protectionism and all those other wonderful things they do for us. Slide, you are right. I should trust our wise overlords to run my life for me.

Yeah, I trust these wise guys:

[Pemba]

You fit a near "textbook definition" of a follower of an organized religion.

1. You cede the imperative to think for yourself and question outside of what you are told to believe

2. The purveyor(s) of the narrative to which you vow your allegiance can provide no proof of validity, so you are expected to take their word on "faith"

3. If you do question the narrative directed by the purveyors of your religion, you are excommunicated, other members are required to denounce you, and those other member cannot have dealings with you without facing excommunication themselves.


All three of the above are the exact opposite of science. I would suggest you 'think for your self, and question authority'.

The only thing that makes any sense to me here is the last sentence in which you say that I should think for myself and question authority. "I vow my allegiance etc" ? where do I do that ?? I think I've indicated that I'm not convinced either way but prefer to stay on the safe side of the argument. I am actually questioning the narrative by inviting alternative ideas/theories, yours and others. Some things coming out are interesting, some are not. The only thing you could reasonably claim is that I am not well informed and that I shouldn't be having an opinion either way at least not in public. There is something to be said for that. What's your viewpoint on the holocaust by the way, did it happen ? And on vaccinations ? There are many things we believe because we are told something and often because we are forced to pick a side, even if there is controversy about it. That doesn't necessarily mean we are "religious" about it or aren't questioning it. A lot also depends on the consequences of picking the wrong side. This is also the case for man made global warming. I seem to be repeating myself.. You obviously feel that the arguments made by the climate sceptics are convincing enough to sway most independently thinking people and "believers" are believers because they can't or won't think for themselves. I can't believe that but I do intend to get better informed on the subject. If you happen to have any interesting links or things to read, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Sorry for missing this post for so long. Here we go!

....Personally I am not supporting any view "religiously". I am a "believer" in that I'm just going along with what the majority of scientists believes. If they can't come up with proof either way, I can save myself the trouble of trying....

"Believes" is the key to the problem with your statement. NEVER, EVER should you resort to "believing" what someone else does, just because they do, or who they are. If you do, you are ceding the ability to think for yourself, to someone else. And if that other person has any personal or political/power agenda, you are helping them achieve an agenda that may not be beneficial to you or to others.

Anytime someone tells you that you should believe as they do, and you intend to take a side, you must question their evidence AND motivations. On the AGW issue, the evidence has been faked on both sides, and there are clear financial motivations for beliefs on both sides.

But the most important thing in this debate is that there is a 3rd choice. And that 3rd choice is that "we do not know what is happening, nor do we know anything about the effects of what we do not know is happening".

But don't just believe me on this. You need to dig deep, examine what evidence is being cited, what evidence is being buried, what evidence is being faked, the degree of uncertainty to which those predictions exist in, the failure of those predictions in the past, and the scandals that have rocked this issue across all viewpoints.

Another piece of advice I would offer you is to stay focused. While you may think it is "telling" to know others controversial views (vaccinations and holocaust), it does not actually help to have that info because those are separate topics. Virtually everyone will have some very sane and accurate views on the reality of one topic, but will still have an emotional view on another topic. Think of it this way, "A parrot that squawks 'the sky is blue, the sky is blue', is correct even though the parrot is just a parrot". Your concern should be with the issue and reality first. Concern for another's crazy off topic views should be of very little concern.

This topic has gone of the rails a long time ago, many of the more sensible people on this forum have long checked out unfortunately. But I'm not one of those obviously. So here too I go..: Sure, sure, as the teacher said to the student, we should question everything. I completely agree, there's really no need to keep on repeating this. Let me put it different: I believe there is a reasonable likelihood or possibility that what the majority of scientists believe with regards to the issue at hand is correct. A bigger likelihood than what the minority believes. This says very little about my being well or badly informed, my having questioned anything or not, etc. Whatever your belief is, I see two choices, not three. Either to try to do something about so called man made climate change or to not bother. For everybody living in the first world with access to news, internet etc. both are a choice, explicitly made or not.

The examples were to illustrate that most people, probably even you, believe something, even though they haven’t proved it to themselves. Different topics, same issue (not sure if that’s actually correctly put – I’m not a native English speaker – but I think it should be clear what I mean). You seem to take a political approach to answering questions (not answering them) but personally I believe in vaccinations, I've been vaccinated a number of times. But I've never really looked into the non religious arguments of those people that are against. I should off course but..well, I've been lazy I guess. Those against might have some very good points and it's possible for me to change my mind at some point. Same with man made climate change.

And a touch of Marlboro man:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-five-c ... nge-denial
Another biased site ? Very possible,I really don't know.

[tegirinenashi]

Why do you think the majority of scientists believe what the activists and the media imply? Read IPCC report and tell us where it shows more than one meter of sea level rise during a century or two. Show us where this silly figure of 1 billion climate migrants is originated from. What page of IPCC report mentioned "climate emergency"?

The majority of scientists have no stake in the issue as they explore their little corner of the world. You don't see the silent majority simply because activists like Mann and Hansen took all the attention.

[SaulOhio]

The IPCC's own data seems to say that at most climate change may be a bit of an inconvenience. And their own data seems to show not even that. There is no climate migrant crisis. The migrant crisis is political. Agricultural production in the countries the migrants are coming from is growing and stable.

[Trent hink]

If you believe that increased co2 will benefit the planet by increasing plant growth, how do you deal with problems such as estuarine acidification?

Or are these types of issues just fake news hype?

[tegirinenashi]

Treat it the same way as the "acid rain" problem. Remember that hype? It turned out to be nothing.

If you want to have an idea what marine ecosystem might look at elevated water temperatures, look no further than Red sea. Its coral reef is more spectacular than even the Great Barrier one.

Perhaps it will be a news to you, but the experiment with elevated CO2 levels has been run many times before. The life on the planet thrived back then.

[foilholio]

If you believe that increased co2 will benefit the planet by increasing plant growth, how do you deal with problems such as estuarine acidification?

Or are these types of issues just fake news hype?

This is the problem increasing CO2 increasing plant growth is a fact and not a belief. Beliefs in science do not matter. Most everything on the alarmist side is purely beliefs with no facts. The beliefs cover mostly the amounts of things. The amounts of temperature change from the increase of CO2 and the amounts of negative effects from those changes. Where do you see it discussed of any benefit from CO2 increase? Because I would argue that if you don't at least have some of that side then you are dealing with biased opinions. I would say that the biological changes cause by increase CO2 offer not only a potential benefit from increased plant growth but also the largest risk, larger than sea level rise or any temperature change. That is because the effect on plants is so large this will have drastic effects on the ecology. Overall life in quantity will increase but the balance between players will shift drastically.

Estuarine acidification? Acidification is really a misnomer, in the ocean at least we are looking at a small PH change. For the ocean I am aware of the science for drastic negative effects to calcium based structures having been debunked.

Perhaps it will be a news to you, but the experiment with elevated CO2 levels has been run many times before. The life on the planet back then thrived.

Yes but to rationalize for those CO2 levels 100's of times higher, the "scientists" believe the sun was significantly cooler then. Just like they also supposedly know the composition of the Sun right to the center.

And a touch of Marlboro man:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-five-c ... nge-denial
Another biased site ? Very possible,I really don't know.

So at a brief look

School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.

Ok children are incredibly malleable, they will believe largely whatever they are told, with age though it can need to be structured right though.

If you tell people that the world is going to end in such a way that they believe it, and then those people behave as if the world is going to end, you then can not use that behavior as evidence for that the world is then going to end. That is just so stupid, but on the alarmist side this is continuously seen.

Weather is not climate. Single weather events can not currently be isolated to any change in CO2. Weather and climate have always changed.

Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle.

The climate does change naturally and a lot more than any predicted effects of CO2. It changes more in speed and quantity.

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect.

CO2 IS a small part of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere. Any large effect attributed to it are from predictions it will cause the main greenhouse gas water vapor to increase.



If the author actually understood this graph he would know it is showing a model that is wildly inaccurate. Now enter in that organizations like even Nasa and Noaa have altered data to hide cooling periods and increase the warming.

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial.

Great so the alarmist are going to become economists now, just what we need. I think at this stage when the economists have failed us again it will be blamed on "climate change". Just like the war in Syria is being blamed on "climate change" and had nothing to do with Israel and America arming and training separatists and also bombing the country, no that had nothing to do with it.

I think what we are witnessing today is the death of logic. A population so radicalized with propaganda it can not longer think. Congratulations deep state you will truly f*** the world over this time.

This article is super biased and I can't be bothered with it anymore.

[Pemba]

Why do you think the majority of scientists believe what the activists and the media imply? Read IPCC report and tell us where it shows more than one meter of sea level rise during a century or two. Show us where this silly figure of 1 billion climate migrants is originated from. What page of IPCC report mentioned "climate emergency"?

The majority of scientists have no stake in the issue as they explore their little corner of the world. You don't see the silent majority simply because activists like Mann and Hansen took all the attention.

I'm assuming its the other way round, that activists and the media reflect, although probably in a biased way, what the majority of scientists believe. Do you think the majority of scientists believe there is no man made global warming and if so what do you base that belief on ?