Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Knobby22]

The sad thing is children are being brainwashed at school at this very moment that the end of the World is imminent. Not in 50-100 years, but by 2030. My nieces and nephews between 8-16 are panicking because they literally think they will die very soon from CC. Exactly how they don’t know but it’s very real to them. It’s child abuse.

When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.

Honestly our generation is not going to be popular to those being born at present. The IPCC has been consistently wrong. Too conservative.

It's seriously going to be very interesting over the next 25 years.

 

[Sean K]

When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.

Honestly our generation is not going to be popular to those being born at present. The IPCC has been consistently wrong. Too conservative.

It's seriously going to be very interesting over the next 25 years.

If I could buy 200 SMRs and dot them around the country I would. Otherwise, I’m irrelevant, you are irrelevant, Australia is irrelevant. It’s completely out of our hands. Enjoy the warm weather while you can.

 

[wayneL]

When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.

Honestly our generation is not going to be popular to those being born at present. The IPCC has been consistently wrong. Too conservative.

It's seriously going to be very interesting over the next 25 years.

Again, wrong thread.

 

[IFocus]

Sean you need to separate the politics from the science, Gretta and Al Gore are not scientist...eh.

 

[Sean K]

Sean you need to separate the politics from the science, Gretta and Al Gore are not scientist...eh.

Exactly, but that’s who morons are listening to.

 

[IFocus]

Thinking about your nieces and nephews really don't know what to say, my kids are young adults but no grand kids.

There must be a narrative to follow to resolve the their worry maybe just BS and say solutions will come never know they might maybe Musk will invent and big CO2 sucker - upper.

 

[basilio]

Potentially till the end of the Holocene and then it will dramatically cool into the next inevitable ice age which is due in the next thousand years or so.

I have very low confidence in any predictions by the IPCC on what happens with another 1 degree temp rise. The GBR is supposed to be dead but I’ve been diving there for 30 years and it’s in the best shape I’ve seen. I’ve been in the Maldives for the past week and they are still there although it was predicted 30 years ago that they would be underwater. Does this look underwater?

View attachment 152498

Interesting Sean . There have been scores of very challenging climate catastrophes in the past few years. Immense fires in the Arctic, record temperatures across the world, climate events that have broken records.

And yet you choose to show tropical island holiday spot , in lovely weather, as an example of how CC predictions really don't amount to a hill of beans.

Given the known consequences of the effects of a 1 degree increase in temperature I ask if you have any idea of what another degree will do.

But nothing.

I appreciate this will be out of your comfort zone but maybe you could check out the changes that have happened in the last 20years as a result of CC. It could be informative.

Global Maps

climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[Sean K]

Interesting Sean . There have been scores of very challenging climate catastrophes in the past few years. Immense fires in the Arctic, record temperatures across the world, climate events that have broken records.

And yet you choose to show tropical island holiday spot , in lovely weather, as an example of how CC predictions really don't amount to a hill of beans.

Given the known consequences of the effects of a 1 degree increase in temperature I ask if you have any idea of what another degree will do.

But nothing.

I appreciate this will be out of your comfort zone but maybe you could check out the changes that have happened in the last 20years as a result of CC. It could be informative.

Global Maps

climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

The link doesn’t go to the last 20 years of climate catastrophe data.

There are many other reasons why we’ve had droughts and flooding rains across the globe the past few years and increased damage which is largely due to increased population and building in areas we should not. What the hell are people thinking building cities on sand in hurricane zones, or on flood plains? The problem may just be increased population as opposed to bad weather events.

There‘s plenty of data to suggest we have just been plain dumb in human development that puts us at increased risk while natural disasters have actually decreased on a per population and financial means basis.

1 degree more? Maybe the GBR will extend to Victoria and I won’t have to fly to Cairns to go diving. Actually, the water around the equator is around 30 degrees and in Vic it’s 15, so I might have to wait a while.

That reminds me, as an interesting first hand observation. The water on the GBR is about 26 degrees at the bottom and 28 at the top, yet, the coral and fish are exactly the same. Last year I went diving in PNG where the water was 30 degrees and the coral and fish were FAR superior to the GBR where the temp is 2-4 degrees lower. How is it so? Maybe adaption, or the fish and coral actually prefer warmer water.

 

[orr]

It wonderful that you get a choice in these matters as the above two posts illustrate.
And best symbolised by Exxon who choose to publically, for years, remonstrate any warming let alone adverse warming effects of combusting millions of years worth of locked up hydro -carbons and venting the residue into the atmosphere; Whilst having spent millions of dollars putting the best scientific minds to the task of working out if there'd be any consequences to combusting cubic kilometers of sedimentry laid down carbon hosting products.
And the boffins coming back, way back in the 1970's, and saying.... 'consequences? ....yeah and probably not good' (sic)

ah choice.....

 

[basilio]

This link details the consequences of current global warming. Without an extra degree..

The top 10 global weather and climate change events of 2021 » Yale Climate Connections

The most extreme heat wave in modern history, a record four $20 billion-plus weather disasters, and the hottest month on record globally highlighted a remarkable year in weather.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[rederob]

Exactly, but that’s who morons are listening to.

Yet you reference these sources and perpetuate proven nonsense.
It is difficult for a poster to be more disingenuous.
So why not try to use science?
The best I ever see are non-sequiturs and irrelevances.
FYI what science has done is show the problem, quantify it, and point to how future climate reacts to increasing GHG concentrations.
At the anecdotal level, given climate changes which are rapid occur at a rate of less than 0.1℃/decade, most of us won't notice the temperature difference. However, the climate footprint is a very different story. Most farmers in their lifetimes have noticed growing seasons become longer, precipitation patterns change, and extreme precipitation events increase in frequency and severity.

IPCC reports have detailed various scenarios, and the one the world needs to hit in order to limit warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, plus be reduced by 43% by 2030. That's highly improbable as fossil fuel extraction keeps increasing, and it's being rapidly consumed. So the earlier CO2 chart trend (a page back) is extremely unlikely to flatten.

More likely is that global temperature will stabilise when CO2 emissions reach net zero, and at least we have many on the globe's largest employer targeting this to occur by 2050. China is presently aiming for 2060, although is well ahead of its plans wrt to RE and electrification generally. The greater concern is the increasing CO2 footprint of the developing world - some 5 billion people excluding China - who, in aspiring to western living standards are likely to reach annual per capita emissions around 10 tonnes:

 

[Sean K]

Yet you reference these sources and perpetuate proven nonsense.
It is difficult for a poster to be more disingenuous.
So why not try to use science?
The best I ever see are non-sequiturs and irrelevances.
FYI what science has done is show the problem, quantify it, and point to how future climate reacts to increasing GHG concentrations.
At the anecdotal level, given climate changes which are rapid occur at a rate of less than 0.1℃/decade, most of us won't notice the temperature difference. However, the climate footprint is a very different story. Most farmers in their lifetimes have noticed growing seasons become longer, precipitation patterns change, and extreme precipitation events increase in frequency and severity.

IPCC reports have detailed various scenarios, and the one the world needs to hit in order to limit warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, plus be reduced by 43% by 2030. That's highly improbable as fossil fuel extraction keeps increasing, and it's being rapidly consumed. So the earlier CO2 chart trend (a page back) is extremely unlikely to flatten.

More likely is that global temperature will stabilise when CO2 emissions reach net zero, and at least we have many on the globe's largest employer targeting this to occur by 2050. China is presently aiming for 2060, although is well ahead of its plans wrt to RE and electrification generally. The greater concern is the increasing CO2 footprint of the developing world - some 5 billion people excluding China - who, in aspiring to western living standards are likely to reach annual per capita emissions around 10 tonnes:
View attachment 152532

China aiming for 2060? That’s the real problem. Add in India not cutting emissions by what, 2050, maybe. That’s 30% of the planet. The issue of GHG emissions has been clearly recognized yet China is recklessly forging ahead to what some climate clowns say is the inevitable destruction of the planet if we don’t stop all emissions by 2030. Australia’s tiny 1% will be less than .5% in a few years and is completely inconsequential. Who cares if China doesn’t bring itself out of poverty if it means the oceans boil and you can’t go skiing. Per capita is meaningless when it’s overall total emissions doing the damage.

 

[Sean K]

This link details the consequences of current global warming. Without an extra degree..

The top 10 global weather and climate change events of 2021 » Yale Climate Connections

The most extreme heat wave in modern history, a record four $20 billion-plus weather disasters, and the hottest month on record globally highlighted a remarkable year in weather.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Measuring weather events by cost and deaths is meaningless when not adjusted for development and population growth. That’s extremely poor analysis. I almost spat out my coffee when I got to the tweet by Katharine Hayhoe, climate clown extraordinaire.

 

[wayneL]

Measuring weather events by cost and deaths is meaningless when not adjusted for development and population growth. That’s extremely poor analysis. I almost spat out my coffee when I got to the tweet by Katharine Hayhoe, climate clown extraordinaire.

Exactly

Roger Peilke Jnr has done stats on this on a risk-adjusted basis. Vis a vis, on a risk adjusted basis damage done by climate events is actually declining.

 

[Sean K]

Exactly

Roger Peilke Jnr has done stats on this on a risk-adjusted basis. Vis a vis, on a risk adjusted basis damage done by climate events is actually declining.

Yep, I think Lomborg has done some good analysis in that regard too. You have to question a universities credibility when they quite obviously create content skewed to support the climate clowns. One word for it: funding.

 

[basilio]

Insurance companies aren't noted for dodgy figures. Their take on climate change caused disasters is realistic.

Climate change and P&C insurance: The threat and opportunity

Many insurance business models must adapt to the effects from climate change

www.mckinsey.com

 

[mullokintyre]

Insurance companies aren't noted for dodgy figures. Their take on climate change caused disasters is realistic.

Climate change and P&C insurance: The threat and opportunity

Many insurance business models must adapt to the effects from climate change

www.mckinsey.com

Insurance companies are like banks.
Known for screwing as much money out of people as possible.
Mick

 

[Sean K]

Insurance companies are like banks.
Known for screwing as much money out of people as possible.
Mick

I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified? I personally think if you build a house in a bush fire prone area, or on a flood plain, or on the beach within a few meters of the ocean, or on an earthquake fault, or under an active volcano, you should pay extra. But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?

 

[mullokintyre]

I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified? I personally think if you build a house in a bush fire prone area, or on a flood plain, or on the beach within a few meters of the ocean, or on an earthquake fault, or under an active volcano, you should pay extra. But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?

I can only go on personal experience, but when we built our house 5 years ago, the orignal insurance quote said we were in a fire prone area. Our house is in the middle of a town that is surrounded by open pasture. But they just look at post code data and slap you with extra charges because of an apparent fire risk.
Mick

 

[basilio]

I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified? I personally think if you build a house in a bush fire prone area, or on a flood plain, or on the beach within a few meters of the ocean, or on an earthquake fault, or under an active volcano, you should pay extra. But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?

No it doesn't work like that.

Insurance companies refuse to insure areas with significant risk or ask for premiums that are way beyond capacity to pay.
When regions become uninsurable it becomes impossible to sell houses because banks won't loan funds on properties without insurance.

When it comes to recouping the losses incurred in natural disasters ie the floods across Australia in the last three years, the massive bushfires of 2019/20 they increase the premiums across all customers to spread the load.

The issue of insurance and insurance premiums is probably one of the first key economic problems facing the world as climate change impacts on infrastructure. This issue was one of the earliest concerns around climate change raised in the insurance industry.

Climate Change Edition | Risk Management Partners

With the Climate Change Edition of Munich Re’s Location Risk Intelligence Platform you can bring your analysis and assessment of the physical risks associated with climate change to the next level.

www.munichre.com

Climate change and its consequences | Munich Re

Climate change is real and is influencing weather-related natural disasters. If weather extremes become more frequent or more intense, losses will increase unless specific mitigation measures are implemented.

www.munichre.com