Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[rederob]

Simply playing the devil's advocate and waiting for you to knock it down.
Thanks.

I have no idea what you mean, so there is really nothing to knock down.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have no idea what you mean, so there is really nothing to knock down.

AGW sceptics are on to the "natural cycle" of climate change. I just wanted to see a counter argument.

 

[qldfrog]

In the interest of mankind, it is critical we stop the "blame the co2" and look at the real reasons
A very basic fact
Eons ago, co2 levels were hundreds if not 1000 of time higher than now, earth was an ecological paradise which created life with vegetation so abundant it created our coal and oil deposit
Earth did not become a baked oven did it?
But climate is indeed changing, and maybe faster than ever..maybe
So let's stop focusing on fake problems, sort if we can real issues: overpopulation first to reduce human influence, biodiversity, pollution,etc etc
And let science be allowed to actually do its work at finding the cause of the current changes.
And it could very well be that this is just natural cycles, sunspot influence,etc or a system where human heat releases,darkening of the surface,removal of forests,even a bit of Co2 greenhouse effect all play together
But right now, this is impossible, no real science is possible
And the population is still increasing, Borneo forest still burning and elephants slaughtered while the west spend billions if not trillions and destroy its economy reducing its CO2 output share, while the global figures are still increasing with no change,and
no will from the biggest emitters to change...

 

[rederob]

In the interest of mankind, it is critical we stop the "blame the co2" and look at the real reasons
A very basic fact
Eons ago, co2 levels were hundreds if not 1000 of time higher than now, earth was an ecological paradise which created life with vegetation so abundant it created our coal and oil deposit
Earth did not become a baked oven did it?
But climate is indeed changing, and maybe faster than ever..maybe
So let's stop focusing on fake problems, sort if we can real issues: overpopulation first to reduce human influence, biodiversity, pollution,etc etc
And let science be allowed to actually do its work at finding the cause of the current changes.
And it could very well be that this is just natural cycles, sunspot influence,etc or a system where human heat releases,darkening of the surface,removal of forests,even a bit of Co2 greenhouse effect all play together
But right now, this is impossible, no real science is possible
And the population is still increasing, Borneo forest still burning and elephants slaughtered while the west spend billions if not trillions and destroy its economy reducing its CO2 output share, while the global figures are still increasing with no change,and
no will from the biggest emitters to change...

You clearly do not understand much about climate science because if you did you would not make such claims - just ill-informed guesses actually.
But you are very good at making up your own FAKE NEWS. The "overpopulation" argument that now gets bandied around so often by climate change deniers, has been bandied around for decades - I know it was an issue when the global population was still at 3 billion! Biodiversity and pollution concerns, for example, are not population dependent. The real issue is what governments do to mitigate the problems which arise from ANY increase in population, aside from addressing the problem of poor resource governance itself.

 

[rederob]

AGW sceptics are on to the "natural cycle" of climate change. I just wanted to see a counter argument.

Again, I have no idea what you mean.
Natural cycles affecting climate are well understood.
You need to work on your "language" as climate change in the present context does not mean the same as how over geological time-frames climate has natural variability. Sadly it is the case that climate science denial followers have never worked this out, but the denial protagonists have and it's even written into their strategy papers.
From the purist's perspective, what cannot be shown by those who deny climate science is how a planet which receives less energy over many decades can continue to get meaningfully warmer, rather than cool. They cannot show that current warming would be a consequence of any natural cycle, and they fail miserably when the known properties of greenhouse gases are accounted for in our atmosphere.
Your AGW sceptics are a clueless bunch!

 

[SirRumpole]

Tim Flannery is a failure. He says...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-17/climate-change-deniers-are-a-threat-to-our-children/11518138

 

[SirRumpole]

I was about to reply to a post by sptrawler when it suddenly disappeared !

 

[rederob]

Tim Flannery is a failure. He says...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-17/climate-change-deniers-are-a-threat-to-our-children/11518138

I think most educated people know who the failures are.
Are you the new wayneL here?

 

[sptrawler]

I was about to reply to a post by sptrawler when it suddenly disappeared !

Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO

Probably right. The gist of the article you quoted seemed to me to be a government dictating to the people rather than the other way around. Banning cars and forcing people to use public transport (when there isn't any) is just a stupid way to lose elections imo. Governments have to provide alternatives before "encouraging" people to switch from their current arrangements.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think most educated people know who the failures are.
Are you the new wayneL here?

I simply quoted an article from the man himself saying he is a failure without making any comment myself.

You descend too easily into ad hominem attacks, it shows a lack of character.

 

[sptrawler]

Probably right. The gist of the article you quoted seemed to me to be a government dictating to the people rather than the other way around. Banning cars and forcing people to use public transport (when there isn't any) is just a stupid way to lose elections imo. Governments have to provide alternatives before "encouraging" people to switch from their current arrangements.

Exactly Rumpy, all we hear is the endless ramblings of people saying they want change, how many of them are carbon neutral?
How many of them have a roof covered in solar panels and a 15Kw battery in the carport, charging their electric car, very few of them I bet.
But we have to listen to them constantly lecturing all and sundry, on how it should be, maybe they should become clerics or something. They are obviously missing something in their lives.IMO

 

[rederob]

I simply quoted an article from the man himself saying he is a failure without making any comment myself.
You descend too easily into ad hominem attacks, it shows a lack of character.

You must be wayneL - I comment on your poor posting and lack of understanding of this topic. Which is more evident from each of your posts.
Please go and learn what an ad hominem is because you are not using the phrase correctly.
Finally, you conflated a failure of climate activism to a "personal failure," which is pretty unforgivable in my book.

 

[rederob]

Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO

It depends on what you add.
If you are going to post off topic, as Rumpy has been doing, then it's pointless.
But the meaningful question remains and is exceptionally newsworthy. Global warming IS unstoppable if nobody acts.
And as Australia is NOT acting as it needs to, we will continue to lead the planet into a very unhealthy climate future.

 

[SirRumpole]

You must be wayneL - I comment on your poor posting and lack of understanding of this topic. Which is more evident from each of your posts.
Please go and learn what an ad hominem is because you are not using the phrase correctly.
Finally, you conflated a failure of climate activism to a "personal failure," which is pretty unforgivable in my book.

Please go and stick your insufferable arrogance where the sun doesn't shine. (definite ad hominem attack there).

Flannery said "This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure."

That indicates the he personally thought he was a failure in the climate activism area, ie it was a personal failure.

But as I originally said, I made no comment on the article when I posted it, Flannery's words are there in black and white.


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[

You tried to deflect argument from the substance (Flannery's article) to an attack on me (saying I'm wayneL) , so I think most would conclude that you made an ad hominem attack, so why don't you go and look up the meaning if you think I've got it wrong ?

 

[sptrawler]

It depends on what you add.
If you are going to post off topic, as Rumpy has been doing, then it's pointless.
But the meaningful question remains and is exceptionally newsworthy. Global warming IS unstoppable if nobody acts.
And as Australia is NOT acting as it needs to, we will continue to lead the planet into a very unhealthy climate future.

Maybe you could tell us what you have done personally, to mitigate your carbon footprint, apart from using the forum as platform for your tedious ramblings on the subject?

 

[rederob]

Flannery said "This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure."
That indicates the he personally thought he was a failure in the climate activism area, ie it was a personal failure.

That's what I said, except you made the same error of "conflation". His "activism" likely failed because there are a lot of ill informed people who post about climate matters and are relatively clueless.
As to your other points, they are quite wrong.
I won't bother pointing them out as others can read and comprehend for themselves.

Maybe you could tell us what you have done personally, to mitigate your carbon footprint, apart from using the forum as platform for your tedious ramblings on the subject?

Why not quote these "tedious ramblings" and be substantive rather than obtuse?

 

[sptrawler]

Why not quote these "tedious ramblings" and be substantive rather than obtuse?

I think hearing them once, would be enough for everyone and as for being obtuse do you think you have the monopoly on that trait?
You may be very good at it, but anyone can do it.

 

[rederob]

I think hearing them once, would be enough for everyone and as for being obtuse do you think you have the monopoly on that trait?
You may be very good at it, but anyone can do it.

That's called a "fail."
The phrase goes, "put up or shut up."

 

[rederob]

Try going back to p.109 and this was my response to Rumpy:

Not sure what you are getting at, but better a better paper is here.
Global warming in the modern context excludes the notion of natural variability.

How a 9-year old linked paper was relevant to this thread was not obvious.
It's still not obvious.
Rumpy cannot claim any "argument" here as there is nothing to argue, unless you regard irrelevances as an argument.
But then Rumpy adds that Flannery, personally is a failure. However the issue is that climate activism has failed him. In a fashion it is failing Greta and her followers as well. Not because she does not know what she is talking about but, instead, because those people in a position to affect change are instead sitting on their hands while paying lip service.
If you are going to claim there is an argument here, how about defining what it is?