Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

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?

I generally avoid "mine's bigger than yours" sort of arguments but for the record at a personal level:

Never owned any car that was a gas guzzler and wouldn't want one. 4 cylinders isn't a problem though I'd rather go electric and in due course will do so.

Solar panels and battery have been up for almost 6 months on this house. Had 4 separate solar systems on the previous house.

Just paid the deposit on the heat pump water heater about half an hour ago.

Always been a general avoider of waste and over consumption.

Plus I've done my best to pull the rug from under those who work to undermine renewable energy or pretend that constant compounding growth on a finite planet won't in due course consume all accessible resources.

I wouldn't for a minute pretend that's enough but for the record that's what I've done.

 

[SirRumpole]

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

It's no good going on Roberta.

Sometimes people post articles to generate some debate not because they personally agree with what is said in the article.

But others just like attacking people for posting things that they disagree with instead of addressing the subject matter.

Frankly I think that Joe Blow has got it right about this thread, it's just a bile bucket really and this will be the last I post here.

 

[rederob]

But others just like attacking people for posting things that they disagree with instead of addressing the subject matter.

You have missed the point on every post.
There was nothing to disagree with from the outset.
I added a more recent scientific paper which addressed your link in more detail. Although it was climate science, it was completely off topic.
I have consistently addressed the science here and despite your protestations, made no derogatory comments about you. What you have mirrored, however, is wayneL's tendency to add something to this thread which is not particularly relevant, and then accuse any responder of an ad hominem attack.

 

[Smurf1976]

Frankly I think that Joe Blow has got it right about this thread, it's just a bile bucket really and this will be the last I post here.

My personal view is that if there’s anything to be gained then in the context of this forum it’s looking at the investment implications of which there are potentially many.

The ideology and politics has been done to death and we won’t resolve it here.

 

[sptrawler]

I generally avoid "mine's bigger than yours" sort of arguments but for the record at a personal level:

Never owned any car that was a gas guzzler and wouldn't want one. 4 cylinders isn't a problem though I'd rather go electric and in due course will do so.

Solar panels and battery have been up for almost 6 months on this house. Had 4 separate solar systems on the previous house.

Just paid the deposit on the heat pump water heater about half an hour ago.

Always been a general avoider of waste and over consumption.

Plus I've done my best to pull the rug from under those who work to undermine renewable energy or pretend that constant compounding growth on a finite planet won't in due course consume all accessible resources.

I wouldn't for a minute pretend that's enough but for the record that's what I've done.

I have 6.6KW on the house I share with the daughter, replaced a 1.5KW sytem, when she and the grandkids moved in. Also have a 5Kw system on a unit down the coast a bit.
As with you smurf, I think my next car will be electric, just because i like the idea.
When I get that, I will put batteries on both houses, by then I assume they will have a standard organised, for vehicle and domestic battery applications.
I'm looking forward to watching it all unfold, it is really starting to get some momentum and direction.IMO
I always wanted a V8, but alas never bought one, head always over rules the heart in my case.

 

[SirRumpole]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/investment-implications-of-climate-change.34918/

 

[orr]

If you have the 'choice' of working this Friday, or not working and you do; as Tim Flannery is apt to point out your an Idiot in the old Greek meaning of the word 'interested only in your own business'
This is for the children; Ladies and Gentleman. Your choice.
There are True Idiots that need to get the message...

Look at it as an investment opportunity.
Regards to all...

 

[basilio]

In the conversation on global heating I like the direct simplicity of Greta Thunberg.
Cuts to the heart of the issue like no one else has.

Greta Thunberg to US Congress

“Please save your praise. We don’t want it,” she said. “Don’t invite us here to just tell us how inspiring we are without actually doing anything about it because it doesn’t lead to anything.

“If you want advice for what you should do, invite scientists, ask scientists for their expertise. We don’t want to be heard. We want the science to be heard.”

In remarks meant for all Congress as a whole, she said: “I know you are trying but just not hard enough. Sorry.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...o-congress-youre-not-trying-hard-enough-sorry

 

[basilio]

Nice point Orr about the historical meaning of "idiots" Check out a more complete description

What does the word “Idiot” really mean? Where does it come from?
September 15, 2015 by History Disclosure Team in Knowledge · 4 Comments

The word “Idiot” has come to mean someone who is foolish, stupid and ignorant. The word has Greek roots and its real meaning will surprise you. The origins of the word actually makes sense and is closely correlated to the modern definition of ”idiot”.

In ancient Athens contributing to politics and society in general was considered the norm and highly desirable. Being apolitical and selfish was frowned upon and all citizens aspired to be politically active. It was rare for citizens to demonstrate apathy towards what was happening in their state and common issues. The overwhelming majority of Athenians participated in politics to a greater or lesser extent.

Those who did not contribute to politics and the community were known as “Idiotes” (ΙΔΙΩΤΕΣ), originating from the word “Idios” (ΙΔΙΟΣ) which means the self. If you did not demonstrate social responsibility and political awareness you were considered apathetic, uneducated and ignorant. The word was transferred to latin as “idiota” and was used to describe an uneducated, ignorant, inexperienced, common person.

Considering the above, it is easy to identify how the primary form and meaning of the word mutated to modern“idiot”. Most importantly it is worth noting that ancient Greeks valued political participation and collective governance. A completely different state of mind from what we see in most societies today where most demonstrate apathy to what happens around them.

Are most of us turning into full-time idiots? Maybe it’s time to change.
https://www.historydisclosure.com/what-does-idiot-mean/

 

[wayneL]

Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.

Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.

 

[sptrawler]

Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.

Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.

I think Rumpy's idea of jumping the thread to something more beneficial, was a good idea, this thread has become a pointless politically driven ramble and we already have enough of them IMO.

 

[rederob]

Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.
Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.

You are true to form - making points without being able to substantiate them.
I keep asking and you keep avoiding them.
Of course you will also claim an ad hom, and never yet getting that right either.
Who said you can't be consistent all the time!

 

[wayneL]

"true to form"

Such a delicious irony, Robbie

 

[basilio]

Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.

Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.

"Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do. You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.

Perhaps you think CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ? Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta never, ever says more than "Listen to the scientists" She just manages to sharpen the point.

It is a complete waste of pixels arguing with you and your ilk Wayne. I've noticed that The Conversation website has decided the full catastrophe of climate deniers, twisters and other associated brethren don't have place on the table.

They are wreckers.

Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site

At The Conversation Australia we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.
But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.
That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.
We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.
It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
https://theconversation.com/climate...-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

 

[moXJO]

"Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do. You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.

Perhaps you think CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ? Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta never, ever says more than "Listen to the scientists" She just manages to sharpen the point.

It is a complete waste of pixels arguing with you and your ilk Wayne. I've noticed that The Conversation website has decided the full catastrophe of climate deniers, twisters and other associated brethren don't have place on the table.

They are wreckers.

Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site

At The Conversation Australia we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.
But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.
That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.
We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.
It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
https://theconversation.com/climate...-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

Thats actually sickening. Where is the line drawn on who moderates what.

 

[cynic]

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conversation

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/monologue

Will "The Conversation", now be demonstrating, via rebranding to "The Monologue", its professed commitment to "Academic rigour, journalistic flair"?

 

[rederob]

Thats actually sickening. Where is the line drawn on who moderates what.

If we show there is no evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health. Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.
What is sickening is that without a scintilla of evidence that global warming is not occurring, we still see a proportion of our population that is in denial.
Their defense is largely along the lines that they dispute the evidence. That would be valid if there was good reason. And they argue there IS. The nature of their arguments are time and again shown to be poorly founded or not consistent with known science. Nevertheless, they persist ...along the lines that we see from wayneL here.
The Conversation draws from leading experts in their field, yet many authors are then confronted by the comments of known trolls who dispute what they present. It is not the intention of The Conversation to stymie legitimate debate, and this was made clear, as they instead are targetting "... those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, ... perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet."
Some here may not realise the extent of organisation of climate science "denial," or how well funded it is. Some key players were also involved in denying that smoking was harmful, and use the principles of that playbook to cast aspersions on AGW.

Will "The Conversation", now be demonstrating, via rebranding to "The Monologue", its professed commitment to "Academic rigour, journalistic flair"?

If you have evidence that The Conversation is not committed to academic rigour, please present it.

 

[moXJO]

If we show there is no evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health. Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.
What is sickening is that without a scintilla of evidence that global warming is not occurring, we still see a proportion of our population that is in denial.
Their defense is largely along the lines that they dispute the evidence. That would be valid if there was good reason. And they argue there IS. The nature of their arguments are time and again shown to be poorly founded or not consistent with known science. Nevertheless, they persist ...along the lines that we see from wayneL here.
The Conversation draws from leading experts in their field, yet many authors are then confronted by the comments of known trolls who dispute what they present. It is not the intention of The Conversation to stymie legitimate debate, and this was made clear, as they instead are targetting "... those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, ... perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet."
Some here may not realise the extent of organisation of climate science "denial," or how well funded it is. Some key players were also involved in denying that smoking was harmful, and use the principles of that playbook to cast aspersions on AGW.

If you have evidence that The Conversation is not committed to academic rigour, please present it.

Thats not what was happening in the comments. Any question against the data was being deemed as "trolls". Its become the equivalent of flat earthers.

 

[wayneL]

"Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do. You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.

Perhaps you think CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ? Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta never, ever says more than "Listen to the scientists" She just manages to sharpen the point.

It is a complete waste of pixels arguing with you and your ilk Wayne. I've noticed that The Conversation website has decided the full catastrophe of climate deniers, twisters and other associated brethren don't have place on the table.

They are wreckers.

Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site

At The Conversation Australia we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.
But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.
That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.
We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.
It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
https://theconversation.com/climate...-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

The Conversation bans conversation. Yeah great stuff bazzzz.

No I don't live in an alternate reality and as I have stated a million times already, I believe humans have had an impact on climate in the current warming trend since the little ice age, especially regionally.

But for instance, the data does not bear out the alarmist narrative that extreme weather events have increased and that is one example only. Of course one must stray from The Guardian, Desmog and SS, to get a broader picture, bazzzz.

(Cue Robbeee ad hominem)

 

[wayneL]

And please Robbeee, can you provide any evidence that I deny a warming trend or human influence. Unless you can do so, your obsession with me is not a good look.

Over the years I have provided several scientific links to justify my position, it not my concern if you choose to ignore, or smear, but it does show your raging confirmation bias.