Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[satanoperca]

@Smurf1976 ,
Co2 is the least of our concern, but overpopulation, biodiversity collapse are much bigger threaths.

Total agree with the statement, but the reality is people are simple, and Co2 is easy for them to understand, overpopulation is racists and biodiversity is to big a word for average Joe to understand.

End results, we are going to f---k the planet, biodiversity will diminish and over time population will decrease (if you cannot have water or food = death for millions if not billions, war will erupt.)

I getting up to go for a surf, while I still can, then off to eat some fresh tuna, while it is still available.

 

[basilio]

@Smurf1976 ,@explod ,@wayneL
If you want to have a scientific approach on global warming, why not have a look at this beauty
http://click2.rumrebellion.club/t/FA/lPU/AAGrTA/AAgAHg/wmc/ABWVnw/AQ/mCxC
Finland research released recently explaining why the alarmist reports are just BS and human/CO2 effect is no where near as important as brainwashed into people
Any real scientist should have some doubts as to the co2 claims,if only considering the levels were so much higher in the far past when earth was actually creating these coal deposits
These types of research reinforce my conviction we are led in a Cabal
Co2 is the least of our concern, but overpopulation, biodiversity collapse are much bigger threaths.
Renewable are good, if only because fossil fuels are limited and getting harder to get, but there is no need for the west to commit suicide for no reason.
Might also explain why China does not give a hoot

Actually Froggie all this proves is that climate change denialists will follow any sort of total rubbish that tries to show CC is not real.

Why not check out exactly what sort of make believe "science" is behind is load of cods whallop

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem
..
They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.

The paper's authors wrote that "clouds and humidity are causing all the temperature change, but satellite measurements suggest, if anything, the opposite," Mark Richardson of the University of Californa, Los Angeles/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the experts consulted said, citing his sources like a proper scientist.

That the paper is not scientifically viable has been proven. Of course, any retractions that are published will not be seen by as many people as the original uncritical articles themselves, so the damage has already been done.
https://www.iflscience.com/environm...rs-very-excited-theres-just-one-tiny-problem/

 

[Smurf1976]

Finland research released recently explaining why the alarmist reports are just BS and human/CO2 effect is no where near as important as brainwashed into people

I claim no expertise on that but what I see around me is lots of people, including those who say the whole thing's some sort of emergency, making excuses to avoid taking action.

That tells me that either the problem is drastically overstated, that we're already stuffed and they know it, or that some who claim to be supporting emissions reduction are in fact pushing some other objective.

Which one I'm unsure but it's hard to find any other explanation for some of what goes on.

I maintain my view that common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere would not be without consequence, that trapping heat is an expected consequence of adding certain gases, but that there's a lot of conflicting information, in the form of words versus action mostly, as to the extent of how serious it is.

 

[qldfrog]

You are incredible @basilio but that is the trademark of fanatism
Do you not have at least an intellectual curiosity in trying to prove either views,doing your own researches?
Looking at facts and rough figures?
Not predigested arguments

Just wipe that paper like that, anything no supporting the cause
Never a doubt, fully sticking to the fight, till the end
I witnessed this with Communist militants in France still fighting for USSR when even Gorbachev had given up
Anyway, i will let your delusion go and keep quiet again, how many people are going to die: depressed, loosing jobs or starving in 2 decades because of this hysteria

 

[rederob]

You are incredible @basilio but that is the trademark of fanatism
Do you not have at least an intellectual curiosity in trying to prove either views,doing your own researches?

The shoe continues to be on the other foot, as your claims here have never stood any reasoned test.
The authors of the paper cannot get it published in actual scientific journals as it cannot get past peer review, so they resorted to Arxiv. The authors tried to have their views published in AR5, but were clearly told why they lacked merit.
In the meantime, there are folk like you who latch onto the biggest loads of codswallop doing the rounds and now feign misrepresentation.

 

[rederob]

I claim no expertise on that but what I see around me is lots of people, including those who say the whole thing's some sort of emergency, making excuses to avoid taking action.

Your evidence is WHAT?

That tells me that either the problem is drastically overstated, that we're already stuffed and they know it, or that some who claim to be supporting emissions reduction are in fact pushing some other objective.

That tells me you are avoiding the science and creating arguments which have little to do with what we should know but refuse to act decisively on.
Exactly what evidence do you need to be convinced that there is an issue which keeps getting worse, and has been the case since the first IPCC assessment came out in 1990?

Which one I'm unsure but it's hard to find any other explanation for some of what goes on.

Yet the planet continues to warm in an environment where for the past 40 years it should have been in a cooling trend, so what type of explanation have you been looking for?

I maintain my view that common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere would not be without consequence, that trapping heat is an expected consequence of adding certain gases, but that there's a lot of conflicting information, in the form of words versus action mostly, as to the extent of how serious it is.

Actually it's science that tells us things that common sense often later accepts, once it is understood eg heliocentrism.
Your idea that there is "a lot of conflicting information" is not shared by the climate science community, so perhaps elaborate.

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile, the real pollution problems are ignored. At least their political agenda is failing, despite a exponential ramping up of rhetoric.

 

[IFocus]

I getting up to go for a surf, while I still can,.

A mate of mine calls it hydro therapy a picture of me in the Mentawai getting my therapy a few years ago

Maybe we should start a surfing thread?

 

[sptrawler]

A mate of mine calls it hydro therapy a picture of me in the Mentawai getting my therapy a few years ago

Maybe we should start a surfing thread?

Had a custom board made at 'sunrise' surfboards, in the car park at Yallingup, a hundred years ago. Now I have that many joint replacements, I'd rust if I went surfing.
Oh to be young again, fluck all money and a great time, instead of plenty of money and fluck all time.

 

[wayneL]

Had a custom board made at 'sunrise' surfboards, in the car park at Yallingup, a hundred years ago. Now I have that many joint replacements, I'd rust if I went surfing.
Oh to be young again, fluck all money and a great time, instead of plenty of money and fluck all time.

I may have had a board made by that same fellow.... my memory of those days is a little hazey.

But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.

 

[sptrawler]

I may have had a board made by that same fellow.... my memory of those days is a little hazey.

But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.

It closed years ago, the whole place has changed a lot since the 1970's, you wouldn't recognise it.

 

[wayneL]

It closed years ago, the whole place has changed a lot since the 1970's, you wouldn't recognise it.

I visited the area in around 2005, even then I was absolutely astonished at the change

 

[orr]

Yeah Yeah Yeah and I've been in Line-up or two with Westerly Windina back awhile when she went by a different name...
Now back to topic... Things would have it that the ADF has factored in the likely consequences Human induced Gobal Warming. Stating bluntly to our recently re-eleceted "theocratic' end of days commissars the likely hood of 100 million climate refugees.
Some here concerned about errant plastic bags though; this doesn't seem to rank toward the top of the ADF 'Serious' list.

 

[IFocus]

But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.

Yep, if you are over a certain age

 

[Smurf1976]

Your evidence is WHAT?

The abundance of what I see around me.

Go and talk to a few solar installers. You know, blue collar workers who go up on roofs putting up panels all day or their bosses who quote on the job. They'll all tell you the same - people in wealthy suburbs of the big cities, the big two in particular, won't have them visible from the street. Cos yeah, looking at roofs is more important than CO2, right?

Now ponder why the sales of heat pump and solar water heaters have collapsed? Too expensive apparently. Yep, saving money tops saving the planet in the minds of most.

....unless it comes to flying or driving of course. Constant complaints about airlines squeezing the seats closer together and yet from an emissions perspective that's exactly what they should be doing. Economy class beats business class most certainly if the aim is reducing emissions and so on - lobby the airlines to scrap the higher classes altogether and we can all be crammed in meaning fewer flights are needed and thus lower emissions.

Now go to any road in any of the capital cities and have a look at the cars driving past. Lots of nice expensive cars which are far bigger, thus emitting more CO2, than its owner could honestly say they actually need. It's all about "prestige" and "comfort" and so on you see. Gotta have the right badge yes.

.....unless it's an electric car of course. They're not selling at all well and cost is part of that reason. People are happy to spend an extra $30K to impress people they've never met with their "prestige" car but won't spend the same to actually help the planet. That speaks volumes.

Now let's get a bit more serious and ponder the question about why emissions have dramatically increased since this issue became mainstream public knowledge in the late 1980's? Brace yourself for all the reasons why we had to raise GDP in China, improve urban air quality, improve vehicle safety and why population growth isn't so bad and so on. Yep, a whole list of things all more important than CO2 apparently.

Meanwhile down in Tassie at the moment there's a fair bit of outrage because Bob Brown, yes that man, is protesting about wind farms spoiling the scenery. Yep, can't develop the highest grade wind resource available that's anywhere remotely close to the major loads in this country because transmission lines and wind turbines spoil the view. If his aim was to unite Labor, Liberal and most of the Tasmanian population then he's done it. Public support for renewables is pretty high in Tas - even the state branch of the Liberal party has for years been pro-renewables as is Labor.

Put that all together and there's rather a lot of people, including the inner city types who statistically are most likely to vote Green and the former leader of that same party, coming up with excuse after excuse as to why something else is more important than reducing CO2 emissions.

Now as someone who's been involved with a few real emergencies, work and personal, I can assure you that this sort of stuff is not what happens when anyone thinks they're dealing with a real, actual emergency situation. Nobody worries about damn aesthetics or prestige if they honestly believe there's a real, actual crisis to be dealt with and that goes for anything from a flood to equipment failure to human injury. If there's a real, actual crisis and everyone involved perceives it to be so then you won't hear any BS excuses for not doing something about it pronto.

What I'm seeing tells me very clearly that many who claim to be concerned aren't really taking it too seriously. We wouldn't hear all these excuses if they were.

For the record, personally I do think there's a problem with CO2 although I won't claim to have precise knowledge as to the severity. I do choose practical actions over excuses yes.

 

[rederob]

The abundance of what I see around me

That's equivalent to not differentiating weather from climate.
I saw nothing in the rest of your post that suggests you are arguing about climate science as distinct from anecdote.

 

[Smurf1976]

I saw nothing in the rest of your post that suggests you are arguing about climate science as distinct from anecdote.

Nowhere have I said that I am arguing about science indeed I have openly said that, since I am not a climate scientist, I am not an expert on the subject.

What I have said is that rather a lot of those who publicly claim the issue is serious don't seem to be taking it overly seriously themselves. There's plenty of virtue signalling but when it comes to actually doing something about it well then economics, aesthetics and all manner of other things are more important in their view. That's not the action of someone who truly believes there's a crisis with CO2.

As with anything, if someone who claims something to be a serious threat isn't heeding their own warning then that destroys credibility there and then.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[rederob]

What I have said is that rather a lot of those who publicly claim the issue is serious don't seem to be taking it overly seriously themselves.

Sheer anecdote - no evidence!

There's plenty of virtue signalling but when it comes to actually doing something about it well then economics, aesthetics and all manner of other things are more important in their view. That's not the action of someone who truly believes there's a crisis with CO2.

These are the claims of those who do not accept the science.
The key actions are political decisions that set a clear path to CO2 reductions. Individuals have a small overall impact given that industry per se is responsible for controllable contributions.

As with anything, if someone who claims something to be a serious threat isn't heeding their own warning then that destroys credibility there and then.

No, that is NOT a logical argument. Think about why!

 

[SirRumpole]

No, that is NOT a logical argument. Think about why!

You don't believe in setting an example ?

 

[qldfrog]

I usually have @rederob hidden as life is too short, but I really think @rederob has lost all credibility:
I saw your "arguments" on CC threads...And attacking SirRumpole or Smurf, seriously?
I am willing to bet I have done much much more (even using what I think is a flawn CO2 criteria) than you have ever done
you see I do not spend my life trolling sites , but I protect this land, am self sufficient in many aspects and generate far more carbon capture thru tree growths (carbon capture not my aim but a side effect) than I expect many do:
I put my money and efforts in nature preservation, not trolling forums or being brainwashed with argument any basic scientific knowledge can discard.
Anyway back to my system thread, my reason here tonight