Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

To all,
I believe the real issue is the selective facts being pushed by CC and in fact GW advocates.
As i say i believe human are warming up the planet, i am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, more the consequence.i am not convinced at all by the one research
Quoted and supposed to disproved my own theory of released heat by human activity, as this single effect matches the temperature elevation observed. so if co2 was involved that much also, we would be boiling already.
But this is used to tell us to stop heating meat, stop eating bio food, basically any agenda is jumping on the bandwagon.
In the meantime, in mexico ,pipeline are switched of and replaced by trucks fleet, alberta is still producing from oil sands.
Greenpeace wants to shut qld ccoal when 2/3 of it is metallurgical coal, used in steel making where there is no replacement.
As a scientist and engineer, i am appaled at the level of brainwashing happening and the propaganda released to help self serving interests.
Europe is now waging a war on diesel..via taxes..the most efficient engine type we have, with the engine themselves having twice the longevity of petrol one...think about the energy spent to build a brand new vehicle.
At home war on plastic..no more free bags at wollies 17millions $ a year extra at least in the supermarket pockets and overall consumption of plastic increased as was well known by all studies done before the change demonstrated
Fed up with propaganda, take into account all effects before acting, show all sides
When this will be done and truth are told, people might find trust in the media, maybe even government but only then
if fake news are ok because it is for the good cause, expect backlash

My apologies for many typos and autoreplaced errors as typing with my phone is an horror

Hi,

last post this thread for a while ....
The convincing argument of the main denier ... is a really good one ... he however is funded by the Koch Brothers and their Cato institute is so far of right its ... insulting.

His argument and it seems logical, seems convincing as do his qualifications, which. well my 2 pages of mish mash ...are irrelevant. Listen ... and make your own mind up ... OPEN YOUR MIND and dismiss clinically and impartially the crap or obvious.

His main argument is that, pre 1950, there was NOT enough greenhouse CO2 to cause the change. I agree. I totally agree. There are 10 or so ... well known reasons why ... we warm. Sun is number one ... number 2 is CO2 .... three is particles in the air .... four is OTHER greenhouse gases ... on and on it goes.

Something happened in say 1800 and we started burning fossil fuels ... but what this person deliberately misses is the PRISTINE nature of the atmosphere. For a million years, the earth cleaned itself .... not much volcanic activity ... every 100,000 years an ice age as the orbit of the earth around the sun HAD ITS WOBBLE ... a thing he ignores, either out of lack of knowledge or likely his employer.

This aside, in 1800 ... good Ozone ..., NO smog ... 240-260 million PPM CO2 ... same for other greenhouse gasses and the accuracy of the measurements via ICE core bubbles is beyond gold standard back to say 900,000 years ago !!

CO2 impacts at a level of 1 ....
Methane ... 26 times that with a thermal bomb ... until it breaks down into CO2 and H2O ... so what happens when you DIG UP COAL ? What is Coal seam gas made of ? Methane ...

https://www.methanelevels.org/


Methane went NUTs ... 727 ppb in 1800 to 1116 ppb in 1950 or 389ppb at 26 times the impact of CO2 ... so ... well ... it must be added to the totals and its THERMAL boom ... is well known. All into a pristine atmosphere ... this added with the even deadlier Nitrous oxide via an impact 5 times even MORE than Methane and 125 or so times CO2 ... whilst in .... PPB v PPM or 1,000 to one ... well as agriculture advanced and well ... fertilizer occurred even by 1950 this had risen 10% or 25 PPB taking and stripping the ozone layer ....
https://www.n2olevels.org/

then what happened ? OH CFC impact at well 23,000 times CO2 ,,,, even by 1950 .... **** the ozone layer one hand protecting us ... being stripped away ....

Of course it had an impact ...

Countervailing this ... NUMBER TWO impact on the global warming side is ... CRAP IN AIR ... particulates and by reflecting and blocking the sun ... by 1900 ... NOT much ... by 1950 ... A LOT ... and more so today ... thankfully shielding us. Yep smog is good ... not really but ... some solutions for the future will NEED to address this and more clouds and water vapor slowing a heating effect IS something deniers ignore.

Dig up coal .... METHANE explodes into the air as its released ... DERR ... or I would say that to the main denier who whilst sounds intelligent .. his denial, of what is pristine clinical data is an oversight. Lots of systems as you can see interacting .... smog and sun going a bit slower post 1970 .... limiting rise ... for now.

Enough. believe what you will.
Kiss your kids as their life, post 2050 will not resemble ours. Post 2100, well, with 50% plus of oxygen coming from the ocean and funny thing is ... It hates acid .... 20% of Protein and that's for 7 billion not 10 billion .... its going to be interesting as time goes on.

I can only, with regret, announce Humanity is technically extinct at this point. We however have a very narrow window, less than 20 years, even if one of my worst case things happens sooner rather than latter, its going to occur either way. And that I might add is without any other massive bad event we have seen in the past that alters CO2 quickly. Say super volcanoes and so on. We have enough to worry about even now.

Happy to join Stephen in this one along with 50,000 other scientists ... me I am just the guy they get to build AI and prediction models ... or more often NOT ... I build them anyhow and correct theirs or crap they put into them.

What is of NOTE is the TIPPING point .... where we can do something .... and likely ... Cannot. Or the pain of doing something exceeds capacity to do it. NOW ... if I had my way, painless economically and we the 95% or 99% would not notice it as our governments struggled and did the right thing for everyone. As we go forward and post 20 years ... no change ... the painless ... even possible ... passes.

Cheers Mark M

mate, is this true ?
choice bro, not choice bro!

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1087126358927372289

qldfrog said:

To all, see my comments in blue

Click to expand...

I believe you mean, you have no evidence the real issue is the selective facts being pushed by CC and in fact GW advocates you mean the tens of thousands of peer reviewed science papers which account for what we know about AGW
As i say i believe human are warming up the planet, i am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, you mean, you have no evidence for your belief more the consequence despite there being no science to this idea. i am not convinced at all by the one research Quoted and supposed to disproved my own theory you mean you have an idea with no factual basis of released heat by human activity, as this single effect matches the temperature elevation observed. so if co2 was involved that much also, we would be boiling already. You know you can actually research your idea and will find there is no credibility to it.
But this is used to tell us to stop heating meat, stop eating bio food, basically any agenda is jumping on the bandwagon. There is no science to support those ideas - renewable energy for example allows heating without the typical fossil fuel CO2 footprint.
In the meantime, in mexico ,pipeline are switched of and replaced by trucks fleet, alberta is still producing from oil sands. So what?
Greenpeace wants to shut qld ccoal when 2/3 of it is metallurgical coal, used in steel making where there is no replacement. Is that a scientific argument? Does Greenpeace have anyone in parliament?
As a scientist and engineer, i am appaled at the level of brainwashing happening and the propaganda released to help self serving interests. Whatever that means????
Europe is now waging a war on diesel..via taxes..the most efficient engine type we have, with the engine themselves having twice the longevity of petrol one...think about the energy spent to build a brand new vehicle. Every major vehicle producer is swinging their resources into EVs.
At home war on plastic..no more free bags at wollies 17millions $ a year extra at least in the supermarket pockets and overall consumption of plastic increased as was well known by all studies done before the change demonstrated Do you mean that studies done before plastic bags were banned conclusively prove more are now being used?
Fed up with propaganda, take into account all effects before acting, show all sides Please tell us the other side to using science.
When this will be done and truth are told, people might find trust in the media, maybe even government but only then Not following your logic - the science is available, has been available for a long time and gets reported. How will your ideas change that?
if fake news are ok because it is for the good cause, expect backlash ??? - Do you mean the news which reports - based on best available science - that there is a need to reduce GHGs is "fake"?

My apologies for many typos and autoreplaced errors as typing with my phone is an horror

So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?

Darc Knight said:

So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?

Click to expand...

If WWIII wasn't going to get in the way first, in 2050 they'd be saying it was going to be 2070 or 2080, just like previously we were being told that it was going to be by 2000, 2010, 2015, etc. We won't get to 2050 without a massive calamity (mostly likely a massive war, unless we get a freak viral outbreak or celestial impact or something) which will take the focus off climate.

Before anyone jumps on me, yes, the climate is changing (it always has changed), no, it's not currently warmer than ever, no it's not changing at the fastest rate ever, no, CO2 levels are not at the highest levels ever, no climate scientist disagrees with anything in this paragraph.

Darc Knight said:

So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?

Click to expand...

NO ....

not that quick .... the actual impacts ... it takes time ... watch the PH level of the sea ...
watch both CO2 and Methane and Nitrous levels ....

All the rest is a chemical reaction.
One leads to another .... to another thing ... arctic ice if removed .... speeds up warming .... and whats up there ? I asked for my box of crackers !! But rather than wait, in the Permafrost, which will eventually thaw, and HOW quickly is the issue, is about 40 years at full tilt of old plant and animal matter. Again, exponentially adding to CO2 and Methane.

The sea, and its PH level, even by 2100 will not be too toxic, but irreversible its march to a much lower level. Last time, and it was NOT massive CO2 levels that did it ... about 95% of all life in the sea stopped and temp at the equator was 36 degree's so that by around 2200.

For us, our lifetime or say 2050, not too much, just coral reefs all going. Life cycles of some things in the sea broken beyond repair. Not much sea rise or temp ... 2100 another matter and from there, well it gets exponentially worse.

What these deniers, seem to forget, the 260 million year ago 2000 PPM CO2 and 95% of all life, WAS GONE ... not just the dead, on land as well. Last one, yes forests flourished at the poles ... life was abundant, NON HUMAN I MIGHT ADD. So needing 50 million sq km to feed 7 billion and hopefully via better production, not much more .... but as things get worse, higher solar radiation ... LOWER YIELDS lower contents of proteins and so on ...

it takes TIME to stop pollution, it takes TIME for the crap to come back down and dissolve carbonates and make things more acidic in the ocean. By the time, say we hit 4 degree;s .... and I sadly suspect its 2100 .... or 2125 ... with cause I might add, its a slope that maybe if we devoted 40% of GDP to we may delay it, not stop it. But by then, well, over 10 billion minus a few massive famines ... so 8 billion ... and meanwhile, debate and bull-dust about what is causing it.

It is, on the main, simple chemical reactions or release of energy reactions .... what makes it difficult is the unknown, beyond human stupidity .... unknown what the sun will do ... its been quite .... volcanoes same thing .... all an aside really when ice disappears fro m Arctic, NORTH ... the release of the frozen matter and its either released slower ... say over 200 plus years, or, quicker and that is not a thing we want.

For now, nope no real impact for me, or these cretins ... deniers and oligarchy. Even to 2050 a mass fail in crops, say 5 years of droughts ... about 40% ..... but its assured post 2100 ... so too the CO2 and it eventually being broken down in the ocean. Funny thing the oxygen producing things there hate acidity ... but I am sure some others ... will thrive, BUT for a source of protein ? Lots of ifs whats and buts even for me and some, very unpleasant when factored in. Either way, releasing so much energy via burning them, the oceean, vast as it is ... is sucking it up as quick as it can at the rate of Horisma every 2 seconds, eventually however, it hits a point and one easily seen unable to efficiently cope, and hey presto ... almost overnight in a geologic sense massive rises.

CO2 the last event, 65 million years ago, caused by Volcanoes and then suspected massive wildfires, actually took a very long time to build up CO2 levels, 2 events about 2,00 years long over 200,000 year total time. Well we are doing the same and have exceeded it ... post 1800 to NOW .... we have NOT as yet seen the temp rises, but as we know and fully well know back then they followed about 800 years after .... BUT THAT ... I might add was with two events .... spanning 10 times ... what we have DONE and we have done MORE THAN the two together ... CO2 wise in 200 years NOT 4,000 years.

What the two main deniers, the Nobel prize winning one and the other fool paid for via Kochs ignore is TIME as well. Not only all things that change the scenario ... but TIME itself ... and in both cases the lack of any or much life in the oceans. So, me going, I am NOT going to factor in this, which I don't, and same for the climate scientists NOW, because ... I just don't know ... there is NO precedent for some idiot doing this !! What I do know, its already BAD .... even without going, well ... the total rise of 8-10 degrees c .... not 1.5 they dream of keeping it too ... a political crap thing, even 2, the real scenario is if we see instead of o er say 2,000 years thermal bloom of 8 degrees, one much shorter, again its beyond the 2,100 year mark any of this.

Warning sign, Watch that CO2 and more so CH4 Methane and stop using nitrate fertilizer because the ozone layer is being removed AGAIN ....

Impacts post 2050, with 10 billion souls ... and say 500 PPM and CH4 at 25% more than today are, well it tips the models on their head. As it should. Chemical reactions, pure and simple. What is needed, is to stop this **** NOW ...

Enough. It is free or very low impact economically now, low overall, pity about oil field owners and say Russia and Saudi Arabia and coal mines and so on ... but conversely green energy employs more people and COSTS LESS .... COST LESS PER KWH of power ... something which eventually economics will dictate we use, but for now subsidies out of USA all go or 80% go to dirty crap power.

It is NOT something I can change, what will be ... will be ... reducing the rate at which we increase BEYOND 33 billion tons of CO2 is NOT fixing it, its merely reducing ... the rate of increase and with say 50 years of full tilt emissions.... impacts as it slowly comes back to earth, more and more hits the ocean and more and more it does a simple chemical reaction, whilst the PH of the ocean is good, its moved 25% and again no real massive impact till post 2100 unless my own arctic permafrost and release of the organic methane and CO2 is wrong and we see, a sudden massive in 20 year rise of say 10 degrees in ocean arctic temperatures, then ... wind the clock forward ... but, well prior to this ... well well prior to this, the game is up.

I suspect, due to the convoluted fractured and indifferent nature of the world and its economies, the need of the planet, to have everyone on the same page is NOT possible. Not till, its far too late. The pan as such, NOW ... toi reduce the amount of stuff thats assured to kill the species ... is absurd in itself.

Fossils and various other records tell us what happened last time. It was not good.

Enuf, don't worry, we are safe .... your kids are safe ... its all a hoax and I am kidding. Then again, doing something, anything, which will alter your interests as a coal moine owner, or oil tycoon or as a chemical producer and polluter on a grand scale, I vote we ... step it up.

BURN MORE ... it does not matter. It has no effect. Neither does when your in the bath if you pee in it, or do a dump. Same thing, a problem if you have to drink the water to survive at some stage if you have dont that.

Have fun
Mark M

Agreed ..

2000 PPM CO2 or a bit higher ... NO LIFE ... or very little ... existed on the planet ... that was the 260 million year ago events ... 65 million or so ... well ocean lost 95% of species ... yep warmer ... but as I said, rises FOLLOWED CO2 rise but CO2 .... WAS LOWER >>>>> less than 380 ppm during that time I believe.

The first event, dawn of time and planet with massive eruptions and tectonic shifts and plates crashing into each other ... primordi0am massive o0ceans of green algae suddenly covered via continental plates as they banged together .... oh the good old days. The sky, By the way ... if you know what nuclear winter is, there is a massive band of ash, via super volcanoes that coincides with an ice age when 2000 PPM CO2 was there .... but if you ignore all the **** in the air ... and it blocking the sun ... causing an ice age and oh the sun being 4% less back then ... NO ... as the Nobel prize winner seemed not to speak to anyone else in his denial, his expertise was particle physics and he was senile when he denied the climate side ...

What 2000 PPM has to do with 400 or 410 is not really an issue. One was caused by volcanoes, the next one volcanoes and fires, but the second one only got to 380 PPM ... and since its spread over 200,000 years WE ARE quicker as I suspect we will be when we hit 1,000 PPM early 2100 ... not quite the 2,000 or plus level, but we are NOT expecting a super volcano to help us.

back to sleep for me ... this topic stretches even my math ... and with so many ifs, whats and maybes; and being hard nosed, only accepting sure things is enough to depress me without opening up what is likely.

Take care
Mark

So what do you. Meaning we.. do about it keep putting any scary BS out and tell you need to ride your bike stop eating meat and stop cooling yourself while the population is still expanding at a mad speed, china building every where with concrete and steel ghost cities right and left, indonesia and africa clear forests..and i am supposed to feel bad and be taxed right and left yet pretend to compete with the 3rd world economically?

qldfrog said:

So what do you. Meaning we.. do about it keep putting any scary BS out and tell you need to ride your bike stop eating meat and stop cooling yourself while the population is still expanding at a mad speed, china building every where with concrete and steel ghost cities right and left, indonesia and africa clear forests..and i am supposed to feel bad and be taxed right and left yet pretend to compete with the 3rd world economically?

Click to expand...

Why not pretend you are ignorant?
That way you don't have to worry about saying stupid things.
And when the next generation asks you how things got to be so bad you can add them to your long list of blame.

Well,

for me, I live out the next 30 or so years,

Since I care about the next and possibly next .... I have one vote, I use that, I have a voice, I use that. Either humanity and by that ... even 75% of us do the right thing, or we don't, the math and science are very clear.

For now, the global fiscal side needs change, the word truth has become a dirty word. If I burnt myself as a child I learnt quickly not to do it again.

The past, history of the past, is a crystal ball to the future. Having tried to stop many many fiscal and financial train wrecks, only for them to occur, and it be coined a Black swan event, or something new, or out of the blue .... this time, its actually irrelevant.

I need no validation, or accolades or anything. I just don't care at this point. The same for most of the 50,000 scientists behind the recent consensus. In them 50 plus Nobel prize winners, and 40,000 PHD's ... our journey is to find a solution and keep trying to present it. There ARE SOLUTIONS ... as I said, almost painless to 99% of the world. Sadly painful to 1% .... but tough luck.

For me, my journey is to make the 1% feel some pain and change the way not how the climate works or operates, for that to happen, leadership must change as well as the total hijacking of fact from fiction from ... science. It is NOT about inflicting pain and again, I have no grudge, its the abuse of power and wealth and control that has even a simple easy sum like 2 plus 2 and the answer being debated and turned to crap.

WORLDS BEST PRACTICE .... SOURCE DATA ..., impartial clinical view and action. Impossible to see when a dummy is debating a wall ... for 5 billion having added 2 trillion to the debt of USA post 2016 and people trying to enter the USA via the border in 2000 were 600,000 and 52,000 in 2018.

Thats just a tip of the iceberg about WHAT needs to change. Our own PM, OH I have not read the climate report, the day it came out, but will not be changing anything. OKEY DOKEY .... Howard of late sprouting same old senile stuff about the cost ... of going green ... ITS CHEAPER PER KW HR you fool. Whyalla the steel plant there NOW going 100% green.

Not solar PV but wind and Thermal Solar KW hr below carbon forms of power generation. Some 10 other forms very close. But as I said ... NOT enough.

Not even close. A mi of blocking the sun to slow warming, some form of CO2 sequestration and NOT via brute energy force .... and basically going to 25% of current emissions by 2050. So unlikely, its insane. I cannot see anyone giving up their cheap oil ...

I sadly await, something that is coming, soon. I hope not within my lifetime.

Peaceful protest and your VOTE and SAYING NO ... doings something .. is the only option for now.
Monitor it yourself and see, learn over time ... and even then ... 25% believe NASA never went to the moon so the hope for humanity, longer term, is slim.

take care
Mark M

What do we do about CC ? How do we prevent personal burnout and feelings of hopelessness? Check this out.

Save our minds by saving the world
Caitlin Fitzsimmons20 January 2019 — 12:00am

• Send via Email

For some time I’ve had a policy not to debate the existence of human-induced climate change, especially not with strangers on the internet.

In my experience the only people still in doubt are not the type to be persuaded by facts. If you present evidence, they’ll simply attack the credibility of the source and insult you for believing it.

My position as a journalist is simple. When the scientific community has genuine debate, I’ll report the evidence and counter-evidence and various viewpoints. When there is near consensus, I’ll regard the science as settled until such time as that changes.
The ocean around Tasmania used to be renowned for forests of giant kelp, with strands measuring 12 metres, but most of it has died off as the waters have warmed.Credit:Craig Sanderson

Climate change falls into the latter category, so the fertile ground for a journalist is to examine how it plays out in specific ecosystems, and how humans respond to it both through public policy and as individuals.

This doesn’t stop people from believing I owe them a debate - I was recently labelled an “absolute innocent dupe” by one delightful chap who had messaged me asking for a “chat” - on Christmas Eve, no less.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are in no doubt about the existence of climate change because they are living through it.

I have just returned from a two-week holiday in Tasmania with my family. One of the national park rangers on the Tasman Peninsula told us how 15 years ago he was a fisherman operating out of Fortescue Bay catching a variety of fish including barracuda.

In the past 12 years most of the fish have disappeared because of habitat destruction - a 2 Celsius rise in the average seawater temperature has killed most of the giant kelp forest, which had provided the breeding grounds for many of the fish species.

Sea urchins washed down from NSW were eating the remaining species of kelp and the sea temperature was now warm enough for them to breed in Tasmanian waters.

The East Australian Current - made famous by the Pixar movie Finding Nemo - used to stop near Eden on the NSW south coast but now went past Tasman Island. This brought down the tropical fish from the Great Barrier Reef but as soon as the currents shifted and cold water came up from Antarctica, the fish died. This year was particularly bad but our ranger said he’d been seeing dead tropical fish wash up on beaches for the past four or five years.

The ranger also talked about the impact on the community. Many young locals had grown up expecting to join the family fishing business, but that future had been ripped away from them. The lucky few had found work taking tourists out to see the sea cliffs and wild seals.

There are far fewer fishing boats in Fortescue Bay these days and those that remain are often targeting species like kingfish that were never previously found in Tasmania.

This isn’t a case of a guide telling tall stories to entertain the punters - research from the University of Tasmania verifies his account. Adding the shift in the East Australian Current to the backdrop of global ocean warming means Tasmanian waters are warming four times faster than the rest of the world.

The giant kelp forest is 95 per cent gone due to warming waters and researchers are studying remnant giant kelp to see if it can be rehabilitated.

As well as the migration of long-spined sea urchins from more northerly states, the warmer waters have also brought diseases that threaten the Tasmanian oyster industry. And a citizen science project called Red Map documenting the spread of species due to climate change is full of sightings of exotic fish in Tasmania.

There are stories like this from all over the world - the specifics change, but the broad themes are constant. Discussions about climate change can be abstract at the planetary level, but locally it all gets real.

It’s a natural human reaction to shy away from the grim reality of what’s happening and what’s in store. It protects us from falling into that most destructive of states: despair.

Perhaps that explains climate change denialism to some extent - though I also blame deliberate misinformation from vested interests and attention seekers who've turned the issue into another front of the culture wars.

But denial is not a mainstream view. The 2018 Lowy Institute Poll found 59 per cent of Australians regard climate change as a “serious and pressing problem”, while 84 per cent say the government should focus on renewables even if it requires spending. Climate change was rated a "critical threat" to the nation, with only terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear program ranked higher in the nation’s list of worries.

Yet even those of us who accept the science on climate change tend to compartmentalise our fears for the future in order to function day to day.

It means we’re living with cognitive dissonance - the mental discomfort or psychological stress that comes from believing two or more contradictory ideas at the same time. This takes a toll on our mental health and leaves us less able to cope with life’s challenges, at the very time we need to be facing up to our problems.

The antidote is action.

A number of studies over many years suggest activism and volunteering is one of the best things we can do for our mental health. Happily, it’s also one of the best things we can do for the planet.

While most scientists say it’s too late to completely prevent or reverse climate change, they also say we can mitigate the damage and avoid the worst of it.

I also advocate getting out and enjoying the beauty of our natural world so that we’re acting from a place of love not fear. This is especially important for parents - let's teach our children to fall in love with the world before we depress them about how broken it is.

Let's quit branding people as hypocrites if they call for action on climate change but continue to eat meat or fly on aeroplanes or own a mobile phone. It can be more comfortable to undermine the messenger rather than hear the message, but expecting humans to be perfect is doomed to failure. Acting on climate change is not all or nothing - there’s a vast difference between 1.5C or 4C warming and we need to collectively shift the dial.

Arguing with people about whether climate change is real is a dangerous distraction. We just need to get on with doing something about it.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...inds-by-saving-the-world-20190117-p50rye.html

So i as i said earlier be also realistic, we can do only so much, what is the point of a carbon tax if it is not also applied on imported good and the matching transportation..
But if Trump say that.it is fake news..
Horror
the west will not save the world by committing suicide, as hard it can be for the globalist left, action needs to be taken by all humans not a few single countries selected based on segregation ideology and past guilt of the loony activists.
I am proud of my ancestors even if they were white
Without them, we would not have solar panels or wind power now.
On the other end, they can be blamed for having grown population with horrible things like green revolution , food help and immunisation boosting the population of the third world

So so true.

Sadly I operate in a world where few do. I accept the debating is a waste of time, present a case, logical, clinical and scientific and something that's happened 1,000 times and even 1 million times and still, still, we will have people more willing to believe a myth.

Its human nature, then we have the mix of humanity, from those who care, to those, who have a disease like NPD or Sociopaths. At each end of the two are 10% .... so added to that paid for PR types, people with self interest, people with massive resources and ability to smudge and fudge things.

Without this, madness, the one that is a noise in the media right now, louder than at any time in my lifetime about irrelevant issues, whilst ... other bigger things, NOT climate change but more immediate issues on the fiscal side are going on, to achieve change for me, I will try and stop or alter the balance or imbalance and pure BS being pushed for self interest, and then maybe then, some debate, research and clear direction can be found on this topic.

Yes some massive progress has been made with many EU nations adding 30% green power to their mix, but in the greater scheme of things, its a BB gun against an Elephant. Sad, but true. As humans, stupidity and greed and at times cruelty have no bounds. I suspect, without help it will take say a crop fail in some poorer states over 5-10 years, and mass starvation to make people blink. Likely post 2050. People, sadly do not care, or are swayed by the very convincing arguments of the debunkers.

As an exercise, i approached with an open mind, listened to it all, read hundreds of papers, already had 30 plus years of associated background and NO AGENDA and it took me, well 5 minutes and without help to call a Nobel prize winner, the early de-bunker an idiot. It took me a few searches as to who or whom he worked for, and who funded that, same for the next one ...

Not many have the time, inclination or, really care. Lots of scary stuff out there and I don't wish to add to it, other than to say I have a solution .... PRIOR to saying, the ocean is likely dead as we know it and Humanity is technically extinct at this point in time. Or there IS a solution ... not I have some magic solution .... its likely 3,4,5 different things ... beyond reducing emissions to well 25% of current levels.

Technology and brilliance may present others, but trees are nice but not the solution .... putting something in the air to stop the sun is one ... a few others and we are on the way.

Going to SOURCE data, CO2 levels and so on .... ocean temps and what happened last time ... whilst being told by some scientist or textbook this is what occurred ... verifying it down to the DAILY levels and verses very accurate ones ... in the past ... is where i had to go after listening to someone who has 3 PDs and claims its all a myth .... or some prize. i do not lightly call someone a paid for idiot who holds a Nobel prize, well ... not usually, but I checked and checked again and again, went to Oxford and Cambridge and three other leaders in the field and went ... yep... the guy is a frigging idiot.

But for many, in fact most, that title is enough. I have a few myself, and one that well, a good friend calculated it was impossible to do ... and when it was done ... he calculated the odds of predicting one thing or a series of things, that were predicted at 7 trillion to one.

For now, the future is NOT cast in stone. Sadly, even being optimistic it will be set in stone soon. There is a finite ability to fix things verses possible cures and their optimum capacity. A capacity I might add that's 20 times current levels and we still, for NOW retain the ability to stave off 2-4 degrees ... even allowing for permafrost melt, all be it slowly ... and methane release.

Oh well, bigger battles and whilst irrelevant, right now, some things need to change and leadership globally must be found. Right or wrong ... and it involves a change in management for the betterment of us all and our potential future. Not the hopes and desires and greed and indifference of a few, as I sadly again listen to the Davros stuff and the Oligarchy meeting that proceeded it, I even made Gates who appears to be a good guy actually stutter and ... he doesn't like me anymore.

Such is life. He was giving himself a pat on the back about his work and I asked how he felt about the USA cutting Foreign aid by 25 billion, about 20 times what even he and Buffet spend overseas, why he felt his actions in enabling this cut, and how taking 25 billion away was a positive thing overall ? Sorry Bill ... you really are a wanker.

Its a mad mad world out there. Most governments, MOST, have good intentions and that for their people.

I cant imagine not paying taxes at even the rate of my secretary, and paying 12% as he does or 15% for Buffett but both only declare about 10% of their wealth in income anyhow .... is going to do for the welfare of the rest of the 99.99% pf people in the nation I live in. Thankfully not the USA, but for now it leads the world.

Enuf ... thanks for the time and thoughts,

take care
Mark M

qldfrog said:

pasted below with comments in blue

Click to expand...

So i as i said earlier be also realistic, we can do only so much, what is the point of a carbon tax if it is not also applied on imported good and the matching transportation. Using that logic, nobody needs to do anything.
But if Trump say that.it is fake news.. So what?
Horror
the west will not save the world by committing suicide, the countries doing well are investing heavily in renewables as hard it can be for the globalist left, ideologies do not take action, nations do action needs to be taken by all humans and who makes everyone do what needs to be done? not a few single countries selected based on segregation ideology what on earth does that mean? and past guilt of the loony activists. You mean the ones who have pushed hardest for the solar and wind power you (as you say below) are now proud of?
I am proud of my ancestors even if they were white How is that relevant?
Without them, we would not have solar panels or wind power now.
On the other end, they can be blamed for having grown population with horrible things like green revolution, food help and immunisation boosting the population of the third world Yes, that third world which continues to live in poverty, has poor access to drinking water and food, can't connect to electricity, and has the highest mortality rates are apparently otherwise doing exceptionally well - how observant you are.

I have started reading Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers, got it from the opshop for $1.50 which I thought was fair value for the book, it appears to be unread. I struggle with his frequent mentions of Gaia .......named for a Greek goddess and is regarded as the primal Mother Earth goddess.
.......the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.......

I find it a bit yippy hippy for my tastes, I was there in that early Gaia era....pachouli oil, caftans, pot, yoga, and lounging around on poofs in dark coffee lounges listening to B. Dylan/Dylan T. and the Cat. Having deep and meaninful conversations about existentialism, communism, nuclear power, student activism, several other isms of which my memory fails to recall now. It was all fun at the time. Bit passe now for grumpy old people like me! However I do agree with the concept of Gaia, (it is giving earth a name which is unsettling) so I am not arguing with him over this point.

What I really liked was in his introduction on Page 6 he said...."The best evidence indicates that we need to reduce our CO2 emmissions by 70 percent by 2050. If you own a four-wheel-drive and replace it with a hybrid fuel car, you can achieve a cut of that magnitude in a day rather than half a century."

There you go! Problem solved! All those four-wheel-drives are the cause. I knew I hated those wasteful, unnecessary, fuel guzzling oversized vehicles for a reason.

There is other stuff in the book I found incredibly interesting but I will save that for another post.

I'm glad you are reading The Weather Makers Ann. It certainly pulled together much of the science and many the possible solutions regarding CC and was quite accessible to the general public

It made a (justified) big impression in 2006.

The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change is a 2005 book by Tim Flannery.

The book received critical acclaim. It won the major prize at the 2006 New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards,[1] and was short-listed for the 2010 Jan Michalski Prize for Literature.[2][3]

Contents

• 1 Description
• 2 Impact
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

Description
The book includes 36 short essays predicting the consequences of global warming and has been translated into over twenty languages[4]. The book reviews evidence of historical climate change and attempts to compare this with the current era. The book argues that if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase at current rates, the resulting climate change will cause mass species extinctions. The book also asserts that global temperatures have already risen enough to cause the annual monsoon rains in the Sahel region of Africa to diminish, causing droughts and desertification. This in turn, according to Flannery, has contributed to the conflict in the Darfur region through competition for disappearing resources. Further consequences, argued in the book, include increasing hurricane intensity, and decline in the health of coral reefs.

The final third of the book discusses proposed solutions. Flannery advocates individual action as well as international and governmental actions. He argues that a few industries such as the coal industry, currently responsible for 40% of the energy consumed in the U.S., remain opponents of needed action. The book retraces the evidence that the American administration[citation needed], motivated by coal-industry donations to the Republican party, undermines political action by omitting mention of climate change from government documents. The book cites evidence against the argument that conservation is bad for economies.[5]

Impact
In the introduction of Atmosphere of Hope. Solutions to the Climate Crisis (2015), Tim Flannery mention some people who were influenced by reading The Weather Makers (2005)[6] He wrote that the book 'alerted' Richard Branson, who recommended it to Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor of California, who signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and established the Virgin Earth Challenge as well as the Carbon War Room.[6] Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia, said that he introduced a carbon tax in British Columbia after reading The Weather Makers.[6] The book also alerted Zhou Ji, president of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, 'to the extent of the climate problem'.[6]

The book was cited as contributing to Flannery being named Australian of the Year in 2007 for his clear and accessible communication of climate change science and its likely consequences for a fragile planet [4].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Makers

Tee Hee,
Just found another Nobel prize winner who says climate change and so in is absurd. His prize, in bio chemistry also with this denial, he said he was convinced HIV and AIDS were not linked.

Oh boy ... since they now have managed to stave off AIDS from HIV and keep it suspended and at bay virtually forever, I am wondering if I should listen to him ?

As usual, I struggle on some days, today being Martin Luther King Day and wonder is I had a dream is replaced by a Nightmare. Strange that whilst segregation is now illegal, and many other things, in the USA with massive amounts of African Americans in jail, I was amazed that 14% of them cannot vote due to having been in jail at some stage, MALES that is.

Climate stuff, I listened to Sir David Attenborough and his speech, at Davos and found myhself alone in the Oligarchy section, seems none of them could make it. Whilst I agree with his views, and the sceince is what it is, knowing the last thing on the movers and shakers mind is change is alarming. Trump to celebrate and it being cold in the USA with some extreme snow storms as the gulf stream MOVES and yep a climate change thing, Trump mocked as he does. and asked for some of those ,,, it seems to have been removed ...
'Wouldn't be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!' Trump uses winter storm to mock climate change on Twitter and warns people to stay inside

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...inside-winter-storm-mocks-global-warming.html

Golly reading his twitter is a great laxative ... very bad for global warming sadly .... he tweeted a billion zillion times in 24 hours. All of it DRIVEL and amazingly so.

Maybe someone has told him, how stupid his tweet was, about WHY abnormally cold and abnormally hot things are all PART of climate change and since NASA is off line ... the gulf stream was moving as it does to cause these things prior to the money running out.

Such is life. How someone who paid no taxes can honor Martin Luther King and the plight of the 2019 African Americans is, well, beyond me. Then again I have a conscience, and empathy for their plight.

Cheers

kahuna1 said:

Just found another Nobel prize winner who says climate change and so in is absurd. His prize, in bio chemistry also with this denial, he said he was convinced HIV and AIDS were not linked.

Oh boy ... since they now have managed to stave off AIDS from HIV and keep it suspended and at bay virtually forever, I am wondering if I should listen to him ?

Click to expand...

It is a legitimate thing to investigate kahuna, a number of people who presented with HIV back when it all started never went into full blown AIDS and are still alive today. Although one needs to ask what would be achieved if he managed to isolate the one from the other. Better treatments perhaps?
1984 was a horrible year, most of my friends were gay males and within a very short time over a couple of years I lost the majority of my friendship base.

Whilst I offer my condolences, the point, was .... his expertise had not a thing to do with HIV nor climate change. He has never researched in either area, held any qualifications or written a single paper on any topic close to either one.

He was of course, WRONG and totally wrong on both counts, we now know this all be it 30 years latter. Like some winners of the prize, others in positions they never should be in, they have half baked theories and well ... best example is being made head of the USA federal reserve with an idiotic theory about flat earth economics.

cheers