This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
wayneL said:
I wonder if you have examined the credentials of these purported scientists.

(It's embarrassing for your case)
Click to expand...
Well there is certainly one ill informed regular here, and "It's embarrassing for your case."
 
SirRumpole said:
OK, list them all, one by one, all 11,000.
Click to expand...

Its easy to find the credentials of the 11000 plus people who signed off on this call for action. They cover a huge range of scientists across many disciplines as well as people who work in the environment and recognise the disaster that is unfolding.

The odd ones in the list ? Who knows. Who cares. Well clearly Wayne and co whose entire reason for existence is to steadfastly deny any possible evidence or reason that establishes humanity is in a diabolical situation of its own making.

Furthermore one of the main reasons why we are still travelling down that path is because a strongly dedicated team of people with do whatever it takes to stop action on this disaster. Lets call them the suicide squad.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
 

Attachments

  • supplemental file S1 - signatory list - Ripple et al 10-14-19.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 10
  • supplemental file S2 - additional materials - Ripple et al 10-14-19.pdf
    897.6 KB · Views: 9
wayneL said:
Thread
Click to expand...
Sadly wayneL seldom checks his sources as Hanjo Bohme is a member of the Alliance of World Scientists and remains active in environmentalism in Namibia despite official retirement.
Most of the students listed are postgrad or phD.
All the signatories can be reviewed, so it's not a secret what they do or where they are from, and it was not a prerequisite that they be involved in climate.
It's a shame when posters try to cast a slur on the sciences (or any professions for that matter) as a whole because they think that maybe one of many does not fit the mold.
 

It's not a case of that Robbie, much is made of the gross number where is you and I both though that the gross number is nowhere near the number of people qualified to make such a declaration.

there are also other factors at play which I'm not even going to bother discussing with you.
 
wayneL said:
there are also other factors at play which I'm not even going to bother discussing with you.
Click to expand...
You are full of excuses and of no substance, so that was at least a wise choice you made.
As for the number of signatories, it was very much an in-house request for member scientists to read what was proposed to be published, and if acceptable to add their names.
But that's somewhat beside the real point, which is that there is currently no science with an alternative to AGW that is close to credible... and that as time goes by the evidence just gets stronger.
 
I'm sorry, that's just untrue. The thing is that your record of denial for anything apart from the approved narrative, and Alinskyesque argumentation is clear and on record here.

I like my debates to be fruitful and ini terms of a mutual experience of discovery, it is not possible with you.

My own client base is quite broad, from CSIRO scientists, employees of the UN, a nuclear physicist in the UK renewables program and so on an so forth. That's conversations fruitful and mutually respectful.... And from where I have formed a great majority have my opinions.

You on the other hand immediately reach for the tawdry tactic of ad hominem, so any discussion is basically in exercise of futility.
 
wayneL said:
I'm sorry, that's just untrue. The thing is that your record of denial for anything apart from the approved narrative, and Alinskyesque argumentation is clear and on record here.
Click to expand...
You mean the regular links in make to climate science, as distinct from your regular links to pseudoscience and nonsense.
There is no such thing as "approved narrative" as it is a concoction dreamed up by denialists spin doctors to suggest there is a type of conspiracy of knowledge which is somehow not a good thing!
wayneL said:
I like my debates to be fruitful and ini terms of a mutual experience of discovery, it is not possible with you.
Click to expand...
Given that I will quote the science, and you are in actual denial of its veracity, what is there to debate?
I present the science and generally have no need for anyone's opinions on climate matters. I suspect 30 years of IPCC Reports is reasonably adequate.
wayneL said:
You on the other hand immediately reach for the tawdry tactic of ad hominem, so any discussion is basically in exercise of futility.
Click to expand...
What is very clear is that you do not know what an ad hominem is given your propensity to misuse the term.
 
Meanwhile I hear yet another story of someone who's managed to find a way around the Victorian government's rules requiring the use of gas in a new home, only to be stopped by the local council which is insisting on it for hot water.

Meanwhile my own little experiment, which I admit is deliberately testing the "system" from an administrative perspective, has run into a hurdle with someone in the Philippines who isn't aware of the new rules commencing 1 December 2017. I'll go through the motions of asking "layman's" questions and seeing where that goes, this is an intentional test after all, but no doubt most would just give up rather than bash their heads against the wall over something that's of no practical benefit to them personally.

So hopefully all this CO2 and climate caper is just an elaborate hoax. We're pretty much stuffed if it isn't given we can't even manage to do the simplest most mundane things to address it without someone stuffing it up. Hence I, and rather a lot of people who've seen all this from the other side, have lost interest in it - it'd be easier to walk from Brisbane to Perth than to get some of the simplest things done it seems.
 
Interesting that the Forbes/ Roger Pielke is attempting to spin the story that CC is not really causing any problems.

Far more instructive IMV to read an analysis with facts behind it. I wonder which version the insurance companies accept ?
This is long story but well worth considering.

2018's Billion Dollar Disasters in Context
Author:
Adam B. Smith
February 7, 2019

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 241 weather and climate disasters where the overall damage costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index, as of January 2019). The cumulative cost for these 241 events exceeds $1.6 trillion.

During 2018, the U.S. experienced a very active year of weather and climate disasters. In total, the U.S. was impacted by 14 separate billion-dollar disaster events: two tropical cyclones, eight severe storms, two winter storms, drought, and wildfires. The past three years (2016-2018) have been historic, with the annual average number of billion-dollar disasters being more than double the long-term average. The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure, vulnerability, and the fact that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context
 
We must thank Adam for his continuous exposing of the level of intellect of the green movement.

 
basilio said:
Interesting that the Forbes/ Roger Pielke is attempting to spin the story that CC is not really causing any problems.
Click to expand...
What is really sad is that wayneL does not check the information he relies upon.
RP jr. is the pot calling a kettle black. If you cannot, as he claims, reliably use this data as an indicator of climate change, why is he using the very same data? To illustrate this point, he says this
Anyone wanting to look at trends in climate and weather, including extreme events, should always look first at data on climate and weather, not economic loss data.​

If that's not bad enough, it gets worse!
Despite the article having yesterday's date it falsely links to the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment which says
“... in U.S. regions, no formal attribution of precipitation changes to anthropogenic forcing has been made so far, so indirect attribution of flooding changes is not possible...."​
Yet this is an actual excerpt from the 2018 Report (the true most recent)
The quality and quantity of water available for use by people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry, recreation, and the environment.
Rising air and water temperatures and changes in precipitation are intensifying droughts, increasing heavy downpours....​
Holding up a serial abuser of information who makes it his business to "call out" what he sees as poor science is not a sound basis for presenting a case.
 
Oh puleez Robbee, your intent is to support your religious fervour, rather than discussion. Rog is pretty up on extreme weather events, perhaps none moreso.

I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***.
 
You continue to rely on postings you do not understand.
Even when their errors are pointed out, you choose to ignore those facts.
You make claim after claim without substance and, despite your protestations of others using ad hominems, from what I have seen in your postings you are by far the worst offender on the forum, eg, "I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***."

Why not at least try to show others here you actually know something about climate science rather than rely on substandard snippets from elsewhere which actually prove otherwise.
 
Unprecedented bushfires in NSW and Queensland - in early November ! Why ?

Climate change partly to blame for early bushfire season
New analysis confirms the relationship between climate drivers such as El Niño, climate change and the Australian bushfire season

... Pulling it all together
Our research has made clear that climate modes bring large and rapid swings to the fire weather, while human-induced climate change gradually increases background fire weather conditions. The trend generally means an earlier start to the bushfire seasons than in the past.

Climate change is definitely playing a role in producing the earlier start to bushfire seasons and overall more extreme seasons, particularly in southeastern Australia. However, the natural variations in climate modes continue to play a key role, meaning we should not expect every bushfire season to be worse than the last as a result of climate change.

Similarly, a few milder bushfire seasons among a string of record high seasons do not mean that climate change should be dismissed.

  • Chris Lucas is a senior research scientist at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Sarah Harris is manager research and development at the Country Fire Authority
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...nge-partly-to-blame-for-early-bushfire-season
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
628
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...