Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

rederob said:

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.

Click to expand...

And you continue to rely on disparagement of any dissent from the UN narrative.

Skeptical Science is an exclusionary bubble, Robbeee.

Here is one for the oldies on this site, a perspective from a 14 year old boy, my son.

So driving home from the dentist, I ask my son the following questions:

1. Do you believe climate change is real?
Son : Yes, the climate is changing dad, but it seems that due the rapid increase in the human population in the last 100 years, mans actions are contributing to the climate changing faster.

2. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?
Son : Can I site a scientific journal, no. Can I use common sense to see we are polluting the earth, yes.

3. How do you know we are polluting the earth?
Son : Well, I have only lived a short time, but I guess that 30 years ago the water in Port Phillip Bay was clean and you could swim in it without the risk of getting sick. We spent time last year up in the Daintree forest, it was common knowledge that the great barrier reef is dying faster than ever before.
We live in Albert Park, just down from the entrance of the Yarra River.

4. A few more questions, then, are your concerned about climate change?
Son : Yes, among my friends it is one of our greatest concerns about our future.

5. Does it trouble you?
Son: Yes

6. And here is the kicker! Do you think governments will change there approach to pollution and climate change?
Son: his words exactly : "Are you ******* kidding, there is no chance, humans are greedy, the climate will change, man will keep polluting the planet and eventually the planet will screw mankind. That is what I have to accepted"

Dad thinks to himself and after reading the crap that goes on in this thread, he is right. Man nor govnuts will change, the only SURVIVOR in the long long term will be the planet earth, the question is, will man still be around. Shame really, will my son have the chance to have grand children?

wayneL said:

And you continue to rely on disparagement of any dissent from the UN narrative.
Skeptical Science is an exclusionary bubble, Robbeee.

Click to expand...

Why not tell the truth?
I look at what is posted and if it makes no sense or is fallacious, or lacks rigour then I point out why.
Then there is what you post by way of comparison.
You have a site record going back well over 10 years and rarely have posted anything suggesting you understand what climate science entails.
By the way, your continuing use of a "narrative" actually relates to peer reviewed science, while the main role the UN plays is to ensure the involvement of the best climate scientists from as many nations as possible in synthesising the science.

satanoperca said:

Here is one for the oldies on this site, a perspective from a 14 year old boy, my son.

So driving home from the dentist, I ask my son the following questions:

1. Do you believe climate change is real?
Son : Yes, the climate is changing dad, but it seems that due the rapid increase in the human population in the last 100 years, mans actions are contributing to the climate changing faster.

2. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?
Son : Can I site a scientific journal, no. Can I use common sense to see we are polluting the earth, yes.

3. How do you know we are polluting the earth?
Son : Well, I have only lived a short time, but I guess that 30 years ago the water in Port Phillip Bay was clean and you could swim in it without the risk of getting sick. We spent time last year up in the Daintree forest, it was common knowledge that the great barrier reef is dying faster than ever before.
We live in Albert Park, just down from the entrance of the Yarra River.

4. A few more questions, then, are your concerned about climate change?
Son : Yes, among my friends it is one of our greatest concerns about our future.

5. Does it trouble you?
Son: Yes

6. And here is the kicker! Do you think governments will change there approach to pollution and climate change?
Son: his words exactly : "Are you ******* kidding, there is no chance, humans are greedy, the climate will change, man will keep polluting the planet and eventually the planet will screw mankind. That is what I have to accepted"

Dad thinks to himself and after reading the crap that goes on in this thread, he is right. Man nor govnuts will change, the only SURVIVOR in the long long term will be the planet earth, the question is, will man still be around. Shame really, will my son have the chance to have grand children?

Click to expand...

Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO

sptrawler said:

Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO

Click to expand...

If the IPCC's projections are about right, then there are massive possible differences to climate occurring over the next 50 years depending on taking no action, and acting decisively.
As to population, only some regions are experiencing increasing rates of growth, with mature economies stable to declining in rates.
If the projections of population growth hold true, then we need only feed another 3 billion people. While this might seem a bit daunting, a lot of "productive" land is not devoted to actual food production.
The idea that we cannot influence the future is only realised by doing nothing.

Nice to know what our National Party Politicians really think.

According to the National Party Leader Apparently anyone who links the catastrophic ongoing bushfires in NSW with climate change is a "raving inner city leftist lunatic."

There goes CSIRO, BOM and every real climate scientist in Australia.

It also tells us how climate change denialism is well rooted in some politicians

Deputy PM slams people raising climate change in relation to NSW bushfires

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539ap.html

I'm not really sure whether climate change or nuclear war will get us first, only that politicians seem to be the most stupid people on earth, followed closely by those who vote for them.

SirRumpole said:

politicians seem to be the most stupid people on earth, followed closely by those who vote for them.

Click to expand...

I'd reverse that order. The politicians know exactly what they are doing. They rely on voter stupidity, apathy and political tribalism to enable them to hang on to power and push their own agendas.

Whoever said a people gets the government it deserves was on the money.

The big question, of course, is who are the idiots?

We all imagine ourselves as enlightened and intelligent, the other side being moronic troglodytes.

We all have strong opinions which coincidentally match our political persuasion, each imagining that our opinions being completely objective.

What's missing is critical thinking and not for a moment do I believe one side has a Monopoly on that.

But what I think would be an interesting exercise would be for people from both sides to have an engaging discussion and an examination of actual data... In other words an objective discussion.

Unfortunately I am not hopeful that that may occcur anytime soon.

wayneL said:

What's missing is critical thinking and not for a moment do I believe one side has a Monopoly on that.

But what I think would be an interesting exercise would be for people from both sides to have an engaging discussion and an examination of actual data... In other words an objective discussion.

Click to expand...

Given it is often the case that you are shown your contributions are without merit, and you are unable or unwilling to defend them, you are on the money with what is sometimes missing here.

Dear Michael McCormack: the only 'raving lunatics' are those not worrying about climate change
The Australian deputy PM has decried the ravings of people linking bushfires to global heating. But the consequences of a lack of action are not confined to an inner-city cabal


... (Waybe) Let me say this next bit very clearly. The best way to decline Michael’s now rolling invitation to be tribal is to respond with reason, not with emotion.
With that basic objective in mind a couple of things can be noted.

Dear Michael. It is possible to do more than one thing at once.

Perhaps multitasking has never been a particular strength of the deputy prime minister’s, and that’s fine, because juggling is certainly not for everyone, but I’ll venture it is possible for emergency services to extinguish fires and for politicians and various experts to speak informatively about the underlying causes of fires so catastrophic that they have been designated a state of emergency in the middle of November, not in mid-to-late summer.

I reckon those things can happen simultaneously – both the analysing and the doing – without anything terrible happening or without anything fundamental being compromised.

I think we are that clever. Truly, I do.

To nominate just one example of how to do this, Richard Thornton, the chief executive of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, did this very successfully on Monday. He was asked whether now was an appropriate time to talk about climate change. Thornton said: “It’s always a good time to have a conversation around … what the impacts of climate change are going to be.”

He said it was too early to say definitively these particular fires were the result of climate change, but “what we are seeing, and what we do know, is fire seasons are starting earlier”.

“We know that cumulatively over the length of the fire season, there is a higher amount of fire danger during those times, so we’ve got a 1C increase in temperature over the long-term averages. All of the normal variations that we see between good years and bad years, now sits on top of an extra 1C in temperature – and that drives our fire weather that we see.”

... While the Coalition really wants climate change to be a story where an apocalyptic, sneering inner-city cabal is pitted against the sensible ones in just enough electorates to maintain Scott Morrison’s continued occupation of the prime ministership – the reality eclipses the graphic novel.

People are worried about their future in the cities and in the region. Farmers hand-feeding their stock in a crippling drought are worried about climate change. People currently preparing their fire plans, and fleeing the flames, are also worried about climate change.

Just to be clear.

Worrying about climate change, worrying about whether enough is being done, worrying enough to try and do something, is not a manifestation of lunacy.


Lunacy is not worrying about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...s-are-those-not-worrying-about-climate-change

wayneL said:

Unfortunately I am not hopeful that that may occcur anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Watch Q&A tonight if you know where the ABC is on the dial.

What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
Temperature, fuel load, dryness, wind speed and humidity all affect fire risk and are compounded by global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...etween-climate-change-and-bushfires-explainer

basilio said:

Nice to know what our National Party Politicians really think.

According to the National Party Leader Apparently anyone who links the catastrophic ongoing bushfires in NSW with climate change is a "raving inner city leftist lunatic."

There goes CSIRO, BOM and every real climate scientist in Australia.

It also tells us how climate change denialism is well rooted in some politicians

Deputy PM slams people raising climate change in relation to NSW bushfires

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539ap.html

Click to expand...

That approach seems to be like saying to an assault victim "we will give you the best medical treatment we can, but we'll let the perpetrator go so he can do it again to someone else".

SirRumpole said:

Watch Q&A tonight if you know where the ABC is on the dial.

Click to expand...

This response is by the left will continue to lose elections.

Funny ain't it !!

Aboriginals survived by altering the landscape with regularly burning of the bush, mainly in winter but also when the wind was blowing away from their favoured areas.

All the early diaries and journals mention that the landscape was primarily large trees with ferns and grass below. They could and did ride a horse at the gallop mile after mile across the plains.

Up until recent times farmers survived the fires by regularly reducing the rubbish among trees by burning off in winter.

Remote areas and towns survived by reducing scrub by "burning off" during winter

No huge planes, no helicopters, no hundreds of fire fighters, fires fought with a 1000g water tank on a truck (if lucky enough to have one)wet bags, green branches off trees and cleared fire breaks around the houses.

All these holocausts are far worse than they need to because the powers that be are too Bl***dy stupid to admit they are wrong.

Of course it is a tragedy when people die and when they lose properties but please think about the thousands of wallabys, koalas, echidnas, snakes, nestlings, goannas, etc etc etc that have either been burnt or sacrificed on the altar of the stupid misguided Greens.

macca said:

Remote areas and towns survived by reducing scrub by "burning off" during winter

No huge planes, no helicopters, no hundreds of fire fighters, fires fought with a 1000g water tank on a truck (if lucky enough to have one)wet bags, green branches off trees and cleared fire breaks around the houses.

All these holocausts are far worse than they need to because the powers that be are too Bl***dy stupid to admit they are wrong.

Of course it is a tragedy when people die and when they lose properties but please think about the thousands of wallabys, koalas, echidnas, snakes, nestlings, goannas, etc etc etc that have either been burnt or sacrificed on the altar of the stupid misguided Greens.

Click to expand...

Many of these areas experiencing severe bushfires have had precious little to burn off for a number of years as livestock have been increasingly hand fed.
And while it was possible to burn off safely in the past, more recently the bushlands have been tinder-dry year round, so it has not been safe to burn off at any time of year.
Country fire authorities are not stupid, and they understand the threat imposed as a result of not having had the former opportunities to do controlled back-burns in vulnerable areas. Farmers too are not stupid, and more than anyone fear the threat of bushfires so do more than most to ensure they will not be affected: sadly some did not realise how severe the fires now are.
You might be barking up the wrong tree.

sptrawler said:

Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO

Click to expand...

Satanoperca your boy is on the money suspect it will be his children or grand children that will have to deal with the fall our be it climate or wars for resources / food / arable land.

rederob said:

Many of these areas experiencing severe bushfires have had precious little to burn off for a number of years as livestock have been increasingly hand fed.
And while it was possible to burn off safely in the past, more recently the bushlands have been tinder-dry year round, so it has not been safe to burn off at any time of year.
Country fire authorities are not stupid, and they understand the threat imposed as a result of not having had the former opportunities to do controlled back-burns in vulnerable areas. Farmers too are not stupid, and more than anyone fear the threat of bushfires so do more than most to ensure they will not be affected: sadly some did not realise how severe the fires now are.
You might be barking up the wrong tree.

Click to expand...

This is just bullshxt Robbee, sorry.

Get out of your echo chamber Komrade.

wayneL said:

This is just bullshxt Robbee, sorry.

Get out of your echo chamber Komrade.

Click to expand...

Seems allright to me. Why bs wayne ?