Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Garpal Gumnut]

Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
For example, it says this: " 'Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper....' "
However, this is the actual statement, "The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)." In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
Ann's link also says "Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess..."
However, that is a false statement.
In fact the authors said "This review summarises our current state of knowledge about insect declines, i.e., the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance through time, and points to the likely drivers of the losses.... "
In other words, just about everything they wrote was "borrowed" (with attribution) from the peer reviewed papers of other biologists.
I guess Ann never bothered to check the source, but I am so used to her incompetence here it comes as no surprise.

Mate,

Just a word of advice.

You have obviously just been given a lecture on word processing for Christmas.

However, you do not need to use all of the tools of this marvellous technology all at once.

Thus colouring, strange fonts, italics and making bold all in the one post detract from your argument like an over done up whore on Rodeo Drive.

Please try to be more subtle and put your points in English without the lippie and the stoned, askance look.

Sorry to be so blunt, but amongst all that damask you do have some excellent points to make, you just ruin it with the presentation in my opinion.

gg

 

[basilio]

I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.

Let's have a try.....

The Frontline:
Australia and the climate emergency

The north has flooded, the south is parched by drought. Rivers are dying and forests are burning. We are living the reality of climate change. This reader-funded series investigates its true impact and interrogates policy solutions and adaptations. Thanks to all Guardian supporters who funded The Frontline campaign.


Notice their articles about GW are 'reader-funded'. That means bought and paid for folks, just doing business.

Do you know what "reader funded" means Ann?
It means the people who read The Guardian support the work of The Guardian in researching this area.
It has absolutely nothing to do with any business paying to have it's products promoted.

The Guardian does not charge people to view it's website.
It's business model invites/asks/ people to be supporters at whatever price they wish.
Doing research on different topics takes time and effort and people have to get paid to live.
To pay these people The Guardian invites it's readers to support the cost of doing this research.

 

[rederob]

Mate,
Just a word of advice.

You are welcome to give advice to your mates, but I am not one.
I change font colours so I can quickly sort the wheat from the chaff when I respond to posts - it helps me quickly identify each of the "inserted quotes" I am addressing.
I use other tools to highlight what was important.
Good forums make it easy to choose what and who you want to read.

 

[kahuna1]

OH ....

SO SO FUNNY ... advice couched in insults. I do love some I got recently when people were making my skin crawl, one of the tropes, about Islam and who mocked the Christchurch Massacre, told me to tone it down. I told him or her, they made me want to vomit. This one is NOT about me but ... well an insult of this order deserves all it gets.

Another, trolled 30 times on one thread .... I did ask Joe for help, but was ... well left to deal with it. As long as I don't swear or abuse idiots too much, your on your own. Fair enough. Opinions are opinions.

Often, I get comments about my long writing style, stop reading ... if you don't like someones contributions and TIME they have taken to share. Seriously !! HIT IGNORE.

I did for Anne a long time ago, after a fruitless discussion and remembering an exact same one 10 years ago where NOW she claimed she had no interest in Nuclear, but was sprouting similar garbage and the exact same source as she does NOW.

This thread, I thought was about " Is global warming unstoppable" NOT about is global warming real ... or whether you believe in it or not. Yet, half the posts are exactly that, going to lengths to DENY the very existence of something that 97% of the scientific community believes in. This sort of agreement is unprecedented and of the remaining 3 % HALF at least work for oil and gas interests or are in fields that are scientifically outside climate change such as particle physics and have NO scientific experience in the field.

So how to annoy a group of people who are trying to share ideas about whether something is unstoppable ? .... CLAIM its a fantasy .... the underlying issue.

Ann. and similar trolls ... she is not in the employ of oil and gas, just gets pleasure out of others pain as the group did post NZ massacre on tearing apart Islam and making me want to vomit, its all about attention. They get some weird sick pleasure out of causing pain ... getting responses and ... well if you ignore them ,,, and in this case I am fairly sure Ann is over 85, with dementia, well time will take care of it. Listening to someone who deliberate posts crap ... the opposite view ... to get a response ... is tiring.

Imagine a person who has being doing it for 10 years. Or MORE .... taking the opposite side to annoy the hell out of people. Life is a JOURNEY .... one of LEARNING ... LISTENING and beauty. Not a life where its rules and rules and I am right ... I am right .... I AM RIGHT .... or abuse or intolerance. I am sure abuse is what some may think when I say NO ... and put up a boundary against someone who, well, is trolling and sneakily being abusive, knowing the buttons to push ... and get people to react.

Most opinions, EVEN MY OWN ..especially my own .... are to be examined for merit, and then if needed, commented upon, or agreed with, or strongly opposed. Presenting an opposing view, or opinion ... when its a scientific subject leaves even a smaller window for opinions verses science. Science as in something conducted a million times which will occur the same way every time. It leaves LITTLE if any room for an opinion to be of relevance.

Anything ... is open for a troll. Sadly and in living color one can see them crawl out and grow as she has over the years. Not one thing, and I did and do listen, even to idiots, up to a point, not one post here or on any other thread I have seen from some has been of any value .... other than to argue ... annoy or piss off the others. That is when one must use their boundaries and call a fool a fool, or an imbecile, stupid, or even further. THEN put them on ignore .... DO not respond .... and they eventually loose interest in their cruel game.

I will say this site has MORE of these types on one site than I have seen on any other in 25 years. Usually there are one, or two ... this site seems to have a few more than is normal for its size.

It is a sick game ... your the bait .... and they, well either via mental issues of dementia or other things gain their only pleasures in life by being cruel and gaining attention.

 

[kahuna1]

On a lighter note ....

a solution via Fox news to global warming and its ... well a new low even for them.
That is a massive big call, but its TOXIC men causing global warming !! They admit its an issue ... or maybe not ... MEN must be suppressed !! They emit too much methane in Tuckers case.

The debate right now, in serious scientific circles is about the first feedback loop via Arctic ice and it disappearing and when the permafrost containing 1.8 trillion tons of frozen CO2 begins to thaw. Lots of debate on this, the initial fart ... of 50 billion tons of CO2 has 13 papers with 100 scientists, basically ALL OF them peer reviewed it .... all 1,000 experts and its not IF ... but when. When this initial fart and beginning of the release occurs. I follow the top say 10 in the field and some other characters who are more doom and gloom and fruity but interesting. I note one of the better commentators is releasing something and will share .... when I have looked at it.

In the meantime .... Tucker and his views ...

 

[Ann]

A Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) may prove to be interesting if Trump can get it up and running. A peer review of 'Climate Science'.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ition-backs-trump-s-climate-science-committee
Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee

A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.


The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.


Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria

The collective freak out over President Donald Trump's proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump's plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.


The hysteria first broke out last month. In late February, documents emerged showing that the White House was planning to create a committee of federal scientists. Their job: re-examine widely disputed conclusions on climate change by previous government bodies. Especially problematic to the man-made global-warming theorists was the prestigious scientist selected to lead the commission, Princeton University physicist and national security advisor Dr. William Happer (shown). Of course, Happer is a widely respected scientist who happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate.


“CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. “If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it’s very seldom that they’ve been this low. Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing.” He also said it was “pretty clear that we're not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.

The Biggest Lie Ever Told – Man-made Global Warming
Posted by Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris Mar 29, 2019


Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models

Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.

The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong. However, the objective of a big lie is to override the truth for as long as possible. Here are the original definition and objective of the big lie, quoting from Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

The comments relate to a big lie in a nation-state, but it, like the big lie about climate, was intended to achieve global status. Goebbels applied the big lie of Nazism with its ultimate goal of a Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years.

The UN created the big lie of global warming because it identified the enemy—industry and capitalism—while threatening the world with a potential global disaster. This supposed threat exceeded the ability of any individual nation-state to ‘solve,’ and that dictated the need for a world government. This is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN.

Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

• It is warmer now than ever before.
• There is more severe weather now than ever before.
• CO2 levels are the highest ever.
• Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.
• Extinction rates are the highest ever.
• Polar bear populations are in serious decline.
• Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

The Obama administration ably perpetuated the lie through the bureaucracies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Former vice-president Al Gore continues to spread the lie and tout it through his ironically-named movies, An Inconvenient Truth and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The real inconvenient truth is that in the week before he received the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK court ruled his first film was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. He did not correct the errors and still spreads false information. Yet Gore is welcomed by mainstream media, who never question him about the errors or why his 2006 prediction that we had only ten years left to save the Earth from dangerous global warming was obviously wrong. This is not surprising because they never asked him about his lack of science and climate qualifications either. Goebbels understood this when he wrote,

“Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”

The big difference between the global warming lie and Goebbels’ big lie concept is that an open mechanism of changing government prevents the perpetuation of the climate lie. The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.

The ultimate lie is that members of the IPCC community are telling us the truth about the dangers of man-made climate change. In 1998, Kyoto Protocol supporter professor Tom Wigley estimated that, even if we met all the Kyoto reduction targets, it would only lower temperatures by 0.05°C by 2050. After the Paris Agreement, Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, if fully implemented, Paris would reduce the global temperature by 0.048°C by 2100. And neither of these people question the politically-correct but scientifically-flawed view that CO2 is driving climate change.

Goebbels noted that the state can only maintain the lie as long as it can shield people from the economic consequences. Clearly, that is no longer possible as the costs of achieving such inconsequential results becomes better known.

The first group to do this thoroughly and objectively was the U.S. Senate. They realized that they would soon be required to consider the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than vote on it directly, they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution which stated that America shouldn’t be a signatory to any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. Like the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on the UNFCCC and had the potential to seriously damage the U.S. economy, while not holding developing countries to emission reductions similar to those imposed on America. That’s why Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed Byrd/Hagel, and why former President Bill Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Even though the Senators were not questioning the big lie about CO2 and climate change in 1997, they saw clearly that action on any climate treaty or agreement by the U.S. did not justify the economic costs or job losses. And today’s Paris Agreement costs are also extraordinary. Based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modelling Exercise, the costs are forecast to be $1 – 2 trillion every year. It’s time for today’s Democrats to be as practical as their Congressional forebears.

 

[Junior]

“If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it’s very seldom that they’ve been this low. Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing.”

Oh dear.... this bloke talks good just like Trump.

 

[kahuna1]

Meanwhile ...

real scientists ... debate the Arctic Blue Ocean event ... likely not for 10 years, this is informative, rather than total idiots speaking. The METHANE on the Arctic Ice shelf, frozen for now, is a bigger issue than I thought. CH4 or Methane takes now 28 years to break down and it is MANY times worse than CO2. 25 times worse.

The most conservative estimate WHEN, not if, when we have an ice free Arctic during summer and its released the impact instead of being 25 times worse than CO2 ... the atmosphere cannot even cope with levels now and its gone from 21 to 23 to 25 and now 28 times worse than CO2. This event, the guy doing the Utube is very good, but his 1 million sq KM is NOT the standard they use but 10% of the ice so 1.5 million sq KM in the middle of summer.

We are of course a long way away from this. YES some more pessimistic have called it already, but the serious ones have it in the 10-80 year range. The 80 year and 60 year ones already are wrong and the NASA measuring of the size and multi year ice have their prediction, ultra conservative ones WRONG and clearly we are 20 years PAST their 2018 estimates.

Likely, the time-frame is around the 20 year mark. NOT A THING we can do to stop this. I am hoping the estimate for ARCTIC SHELF .... Methane, trapped under the ICE on the shallow seabed the LOWER estimates are correct, NOT the higher ones. Even the lower ones will take 100 times MORE impact, not a mere 25 times or 28 times .... 100 times worse than CO2 alone and if the lower estimates at 10 Billion tons released over 15 years after it goes open ocean in summer occur .... it adds a mere 50 PPM CO2 to the air ignoring the frozen Permafrost. Taking us close to 600 PPM say by 2050 and likely 700 as the land portion melts as well. Upper end of the frozen methane estimate is triple that 50 billion tons and the atmosphere cannot break what we are doing NOW, let alone an exponential increase !!

Anyhow interesting FACTUAL rational guy .... the following



Debating whether or not its real, is for the Trumps and the delusional of the world.
What occurs I suppose in 2040-60 may not be YOUR concern ...

But as the guys says every single person who measures sea ice .... has a dramatic fall in SIZE and even worse in thickness.

Then again, imbeciles listen to Trump and such is life, he thinks all his scientists are wrong.

This is likely the first of many feedback loops which will occur ... this guy puts it into ways even imbeciles like Trump could understand if he didn't watch FOX all the time, between tweeting he is invading nations, Venezuela, now Iran, and playing golf every second day.

 

[explod]

Sorry kahuna1 I cannot tick a "like" for this.

So sad that my Grandchildren will see this absolute destruction and have a terrible end.

 

[rederob]

A Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) may prove to be interesting if Trump can get it up and running. A peer review of 'Climate Science'.
Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee

Yet another case of Ann posting utter garbage, and remaining totally clueless about climate science.
Ann, science is a continuous process of "peer review".
The idea that a new committee can somehow determine that there is a new standard of peer review is beyond the pale.

 

[kahuna1]

Ahhh ..

but there STILL is hope. Some, but ... we have trains moving in opposite directions. Delusional corrupt and greedy, ruling some things. Even this thread is an example of truly stupid things presented as factual.

I am not sure what it will take, but it will occur. It always does. A point where imbeciles and stupidity is abandoned and action, acceptance and human ingenuity will hopefully prevail.

Sadly, one event will be the likely turning point for the species to change and accept. IF we have a will, we can make a difference. Not to events that are NOT POSSIBLE ... to stop such as ARCTIC BLUE OCEAN and the CO2 hitting 1200 PPM, nor the death of the barrier reef, or say 200 million displaced by 2050.

I have no hope of convincing even someone like John Howard who seems to think green energy costs MORE. Pointing out Whyalla and its steel producing plant is going to compete on green energy 100% seems to sink in. Senile ? Dementia ? Wet Nappy ? Dyslexia ? greed ? Arrogance ?

All an aside, even the USA leadership right now if one could term it as such. EU is bigger and its about to take over leadership.

There remains a window, even now, to stop the worst of it, despite a feedback loop or two or even three going off no matter what. In the meantime, will it take 100 million starving as their crops fail ? Or 200 million refugees likely by 2050 via climate events ? Or will it take longer and 500 million in poor nations hit via drought then floods and cyclones and so on ... dying..

Sick debate, but eventually even the Flat Earth people will be relegated eventually to the nut house or dementia ward where they belong. I cant get too upset about this.

I do HOWEVER with some reasonable research and background HOLD some hope. Some .... OF course that is as long as some of the very worst of the likely feedback loops don't hit 100 years early prior to some action by humans to save their own species from extinction.

We are sometimes cruel, beyond belief, stupid beyond belief, greedy, indifferent and whilst it would be no great pity of we were to be banished from the cosmos given the current state of global and fiscal affairs as well as the things we are doing to the environment ....

There is always HOPE.

Not sadly in the near future and likely it will take 500 million deaths or so, till we change.

 

[rederob]

To show how stupid some people are, I rebut in blue some claims in Ann's link.

Ths is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN. False, the science was known in the early 1800s and the theory was enunciated before the IPCC was formed.
Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

• It is warmer now than ever before - Climate scientists have made no such claim
• There is more severe weather now than ever before - Climate scientists have made no such claim
• CO2 levels are the highest ever - Climate scientists have made no such claim
• Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever - Climate scientists have made no such claim
• Extinction rates are the highest ever - The modern record shows this is not a lie. Science suggests that only extinction events in the past were comparable
• Polar bear populations are in serious decline - Scientists have proven that habitat change will pose new challenges for many plant and animal species
• Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate - According to the modern record this is not a lie, as the rate of change has been demonstrably increasing.

For another scientist to be unaware of these facts in this day and age is unforgivable. For idiots to post it in a forum shows the depth of climate science denial that pervades dark corners of the western world.

 

[Ann]

I thought I might start putting up some of the billionaires who are supporting the climate change agenda. First one is Tom Steyer.....

Worth some $1.6 billion, Steyer earned most of his fortune running Farallon Capital, an investment firm he founded in 1986. As head of the firm, he was known for his willingness to take risks on distressed assets and volatile markets. The final decision on investments rested with Steyer, and one anonymous Farallon investor told Reuters in 2014 that his philosophy was to do “whatever it will take to make money.”


This often meant investing in fossil fuels. Steyer and Farallon poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the coal industry across Asia, helping boost mine production by 70 million tons. Another 2009 investment in an Australian mine set the project on a course to produce up to 13 million tons of coal per year for the next 30 years.


Steyer stepped down from Farallon in 2012 to focus on advocating for clean energy, divesting his own fossil fuel investments. But by that time, his carbon investments had already made him a billionaire.


Now, Steyer is using that money to reshape American politics. He founded NextGen Climate (now NextGen America) in 2013 to give the environmentalist movement both capitol and manpower. One year later, he was America’s single largest individual campaign spender, donating some $74 million hoping to make climate change a key issue in the elections.


Tom Steyer was pro Clinton and not happy to see Trump win.
Trump impeachment campaign
In October 2017, Steyer spent around $10 million for a television ad campaign advocating the impeachment of President Donald Trump and plans to spend millions more on a digital ad campaign to call for Trump's impeachment.[75][76]

Steyer founded NextGen America (originally called NextGen Climate) in 2013, and serves as president. A former hedge-fund manager, Steyer pledged to donate the majority of his wealth to charitable causes in 2010. [3] He also became involved in the issue of climate change.[4] Later, Steyer made the decision to pull his money from environmentally unsound investments and focus on pushing climate change issues and policies. [2]

He is a signatory to The Giving Pledge set up by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both advocates of Nuclear Power with financial interests in it.

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage wealthy people to contribute a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. As of 2019, the pledge has 187 signatories, either individuals or couples, from 22 countries. Most of the signatories of the pledge are billionaires, and their pledges total over $365 billion. It does not actually dictate that the money will be spent in any certain way or towards any particular charity or cause, and there is no legal obligation to actually donate any money.


So in effect you have mostly like-minded billionaires who have donated billions or will donate billions to this organization where they don't actually know where their donations will be used. Surely it would make some of us think that the people running the fund would have the means to create any 'truth' they believed with the amount of money they have behind them to 'buy' universities, scientists, politicians, media and web sites.



....and finally an old recommendation for Steyer by Al Gore

April 23, 2014

The most important solution to the climate crisis has long been obvious: put a price on global-warming pollution in markets. But the “hacking” of American democracy by the biggest polluters has convinced many that we will first have to put a price on global-warming denial in politics. And it is to this crucial challenge that Tom Steyer has brought his extraordinary intellect, focused enthusiasm and the considerable wealth he earned in a wildly successful business career. By rewarding candidates who favor action and opposing those who do not, he has already changed the political dynamic. [time-related-module]


Through his new organization, NextGen Climate, Tom is also helping to mobilize young voters and ensure that facts, not antiscience climate denial, have a better chance to prevail in races around the country.


There comes a time in every fight when the stakes are too high to back down and political hardball becomes necessary. Now is such a time, and it is heartening that Tom Steyer has joined the battle with passionate intensity, commitment and political skill.


Gore, a former U.S. Vice President, is chairman of the Climate Reality Project



Funding the political agenda not the science folks!

 

[rederob]

I thought I might start putting up some of the billionaires who are supporting the climate change agenda.

Ann, when it comes to defining what stupid means we look at the evidence.
Stupid happens when a person refuses to understand that science is a field of endeavour, so it cannot be an agenda.
Stupid happens when a person is regularly told that introducing non-science into a discussion based on science, continues to post dross.
Stupid happens when a person tries to link claims which have no relevance to the topic at hand.
Stupid is proven when the pattern of miscreant behaviour is unresolved by the person and persists.

 

[Ann]

Climate Advice

'How do I talk about climate change at social gatherings?'


Dear Sara,


I feel an urge to talk about climate change bubbling up within me at social gatherings if people talk about trivial things like food or sports for too long. But it is always such a downer and I know people need a certain amount of time to feel safe and ordinary and relaxed.


Any advice on how to handle this and break through the “tyranny of politeness” that makes talking about climate – and many other serious issues – so awkward?


– Matt in Toronto

......consider Toscano’s approach to chatting with others during his regular visits to the YMCA: “It’s me and about 35 incredibly conservative senior citizens paddling about the pool,” he said. “This is not a crowd that really probably wants to hear anything about climate change, particularly from a gay activist.”
Most people, Toscano points out, think of climate change as an environmental, scientific, or political issue, which limits the ways they talk about it.

So rather than launching into a one-sided rant about climate change, Toscano listens carefully to his fellow aquatics enthusiasts, often asking them questions about beloved pets.

Once Toscano is familiar with people’s interests, he begins seeding his conversations with small comments designed to make them curious. He might mention in passing, for instance, that he’s concerned that climate change could harm pets.

Then – crucially – he waits.

If no one takes the bait, the conversation moves on. But often, someone will bite.

“I don’t tell them until they ask, because they need to want that information,” Toscano said. “Then we have a much deeper conversation, and then they own that information.”

To wit:

DEBBIE DOWNER: Feline AIDS is the No. 1 killer of domestic cats.

YOU: That’s not actually true. But I do worry about the impact of climate change on cats.

DEBBIE DOWNER: Wait, what does climate change have to do with cats?

YOU: Most emergency shelters don’t accept pets. So as weather disasters become more frequent, more people might be forced to abandon their pets when they flee to safety.

DEBBIE DOWNER: Are you … are you my soul mate?

Most people, Toscano points out, think of climate change as an environmental, scientific, or political issue, which limits the ways they talk about it.

To break out of that pattern, Toscano encourages people to consider why they care about climate change, beyond typical concerns about the environment and future generations. Ask yourself, how does climate change affect something that you feel personally passionate about?

What you can learn from comedy about speaking up about difficult topics Click To Tweet
No matter your interests – sports, movies, or even true crime – it’s likely linked in some way to climate change.

Once you have a topic in mind, try mentioning it when acquaintances ask you about climate change. As Toscano put it, you might say, “It’s strange, you know, I’m concerned about climate change but not for all the traditional reasons. I’m also concerned about it because I’m a runner, or because I have a child with autism.” Talking about the topic in an unexpected, relatable way will help you hold more fruitful conversations.

The bottom line? Listen more than you talk, don’t be afraid to mention climate change from time to time, and be ready to say something true and interesting when people ask you questions. Happy chatting.

– Sara

Wondering how climate change could affect you or your loved ones? Send your questions to sara@yaleclimateconnections.org. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.

 

[kahuna1]

Its about flat earth ... and climate science.

quite apt.

 

[Sdajii]

Holy crap, if someone tried to relate cats to climate change in that way I'd be glad to see the last of their virtue signaling face.

Both sides of this debate are stupid. The alarmists make up ridiculous nonsense rather than sticking to facts, which make it easy for the deniers to call it bull****, because for the most part it is. It's not even possible to have a rational discussion about climate change without being seen as a 'climate denier' (sic), because what almost all the alarmists believe is so far from reality that the deniers are actually closer to it.

The people complaining the most, remarkably, are the worst offenders. Sitting there turning what could be a pleasant evening into a ridiculous and pointless conversation about how climate change is going to harm your pet cat (seriously???) isn't doing anything to help. You're still eating food from several different continents at most meals, you're still literally wearing clothing made of oil, you're still literally eating food literally made of crude oil (yes, even if you're just eating fresh, unprocessed vegetables, and no I'm not talking about pollution or contaminants - look up the Green Revolution if this seems strange to you). You still get around in fossil-fueled transportation even if you drive a Tesla. You still live in a house, went to school, use hospitals and shops and roads and gyms etc which were all build on what used to be wilderness. Not using a plastic straw or recycling a bean can doesn't mean you're saving the planet, it means you're reducing your impact by some infintesimal amount and you're still up in the top percentage of people causing the environmental problems, and CO2 isn't the biggest environmental problem and neither is climate change (though the planet's environmental problems are extreme, don't get me wrong).

People think that by being annoying in social situations they are part of the solution. But no, you're not. You're just annoying and missing the point.

The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem) and it's going to collapse whether or not you whinge about poor cats. Unless you convince most people to kill themselves or you actively kill most of the currently living people, this is inevitable. I suppose patting yourself on the back about having stupid conversations about poor cats is more comfortable for most people. Acceptance of reality would perhaps help, but sadly, getting people to do that seems impossible.

So, enjoy life before the inevitable collapse Don't worry about climate change, because that's not the thing which is going to hit you when the ship hits the sand, and you can't do anything about any of the problems anyway

 

[rederob]

The alarmists make up ridiculous nonsense rather than sticking to facts, which make it easy for the deniers to call it bull****, because for the most part it is. It's not even possible to have a rational discussion about climate change without being seen as a 'climate denier' (sic), because what almost all the alarmists believe is so far from reality that the deniers are actually closer to it.

I do not know what an alarmist is, but I see repeated claims from science deniers that have no rational basis.
If you have a plausible explanation for the present warming, why not offer it to us?
Perhaps because you exhibit every tendency of the science denier; make false claims, obfuscate, and stay away from the facts.

The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem) and it's going to collapse whether or not you whinge about poor cats. Unless you convince most people to kill themselves or you actively kill most of the currently living people, this is inevitable.

Yes, we are screwing the planet, but to suggest the that undeniable impacts of continued warming is not a big problem means you have no idea what is happening now, and how it will represent the greatest economic, political and environmental challenges into the future.

 

[kahuna1]

I have one question and one only.

Why is the Great Barrier Reef, our national treasure, or one of them, why is it 25% of the size it was in1985 and what is the cause ?

Simple even for anyone to answer. I look forward to illuminating replies as to WHY is it so ?

 

[Sdajii]

I do not know what an alarmist is, but I see repeated claims from science deniers that have no rational basis.
If you have a plausible explanation for the present warming, why not offer it to us?

The current rate of warming is actually not unusual. This is actually something which all climate scientists agree with! It is a media/social media myth that climate scientists believe the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate or is warmer than ever before.

What affects climate change is very complicated. The climate has always changed to a large extent and to rates as fast and faster than the current rate. Humans are now having an influence on the climate, no doubt, but the amount is impossible to calculate. It is true that most climate scientists now say that humans are causing the majority of the current climate change (no surprise, since literally almost all of them will lose their careers if they say otherwise!), but in reality we just don't know, and so far we haven't pushed the climate outside the normal, natural rate or limits. As I said, both sides spout silly rhetoric, but the alarmists (seriously, you don't know what a climate alarmist is? Keep up!) are further from facts and reality than the deniers, which is pretty concerning!

Perhaps because you exhibit every tendency of the science denier; make false claims, obfuscate, and stay away from the facts.

No, I don't at all, I totally acknowledge that humans are having an influence on the climate. I totally acknowledge that the climate is changing (it always has, it has literally never sat still in the literally billions of years that climate on this planet has existed). Yet amusingly, people like you still say I exhibit every tendency of the climate denier! If we need any more demonstration that you are not being genuine or rational it's hard to imagine what could suffice!

Yes, we are screwing the planet, but to suggest the that undeniable impacts of continued warming is not a big problem means you have no idea what is happening now, and how it will represent the greatest economic, political and environmental challenges into the future.

Mate, I guarantee that I know a heck of a lot more about it than you ever will. I've worked professionally with climate scientists, I'm a qualified scientist myself, I've worked on projects directly related to climate science and environmental science.