Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,407
- Reactions
- 11,804
Is this one of the reasons Global Warming changed to Climate Change? Because, if it's just 'change', they can attribute extreme cold deaths to CO2. I'm sure that's been tried.
Ah statistics, as I may have mentioned once beore, you make them tell you want you want if you beat then hard enough.
For example, the Lancet published a chart representing deaths due to heat versus cold in Europe.
But they used a different scale for each one. When you adjust the chart to use the same scale, the deaths due to heat are insignificant compared to the deaths due to cold.
The idea that more people are dying due to climate change, can only be accepted if one also accepts that a lot more people die due to climate change induced cold.
Such a conundrum.
Mick
View attachment 160041
In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.
In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.
In a practical sense I don't for a moment think net zero by 2060 will actually happen. No chance whatsoever. Because humans simply can't get themselves in agreement to actually do the things required to do so.
Hopefully the problem has been drastically overstated. If not, we're toast because we're not going to stop burning until we run out of things to burn, that seems pretty certain.
Having seen plenty of the debate first hand, I'm really not sure if the activists believe it themselves. On one hand they argue there's a drastic need to cut emissions. On the other hand the very same organisations are the strongest opponents of doing so when it comes to the crunch.
What I do know is it's not really happening. A lot's said but bottom line is the trend in fossil fuel consumption remains up.
Meanwhile, it seems the climate might be sending penguins off course: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...er-penguin-found-on-goolwa-beach-sa/102643566
The climate factor
Ms Green, who also works for as a Senior Wildlife Officer for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, said crested penguins followed the same migration routes every year.
She said they used sea-surface temperatures and salinity levels to help guide them, but that juveniles sometimes lost their way while they were learning where to go.
"Another major problem is climate change," she said.
Well..... There is no real one.The real one, or the "adjusted" one?
I wont be around in 2060 for sure. In away all this should push people off planet Earth: partly because humans are increasing in numbers too quickly. If the Earths' population halved then there would be less resources needed and less pollution. Maybe China new all this when they introduced the one child policy. Is it a pity others failed to follow and in particular India?In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.
In a practical sense I don't for a moment think net zero by 2060 will actually happen. No chance whatsoever. Because humans simply can't get themselves in agreement to actually do the things required to do so.
Hopefully the problem has been drastically overstated. If not, we're toast because we're not going to stop burning until we run out of things to burn, that seems pretty certain.
Having seen plenty of the debate first hand, I'm really not sure if the activists believe it themselves. On one hand they argue there's a drastic need to cut emissions. On the other hand the very same organisations are the strongest opponents of doing so when it comes to the crunch.
What I do know is it's not really happening. A lot's said but bottom line is the trend in fossil fuel consumption remains up.
Meanwhile, it seems the climate might be sending penguins off course: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...er-penguin-found-on-goolwa-beach-sa/102643566
Regardless of the impact on humans, almost certainly there'll be other species that are threatened by a change in climate regardless of the cause.4/ Humanity is not in danger from climate change
3/ It would be desirable to find a viable replacement for fossil fuels for factors other than co2
5/ Climate change alarmism is a cover for other agendas
He was probably referring to what is happening off Florida at the moment.UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".
... not helpful
So it is threatening, not an event.He was probably referring to what is happening off Florida at the moment.
Ocean heat around Florida is ‘unprecedented,’ and scientists are warning of major impacts
Eric Zerkel, CNN
Updated 10:21 AM EDT, Sun July 16, 2023
A sudden marine heat wave off the coast of Florida has surprised scientists and sent water temperatures soaring to unprecedented highs, threatening one of the most severe coral bleaching events the state has ever seen.
And when did the satellite start collecting data? Around 1979 I believe.Sea surface temperatures around Florida have reached the highest levels on record since satellites began collecting ocean data. And the warming is happening much earlier than normal – yet another example of ocean heat being amplified by the human-caused climate crisis and the extreme weather it brings.
“We didn’t expect this heating to happen so early in the year and to be so extreme,” Derek Manzello, a coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch, told CNN. “This appears to be unprecedented in our records.”
The exceptional temperatures – close to 97 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas – are more than just another alarming climate record; extreme ocean heat and its duration are critical in deciding the survival of coral reefs. Temperatures that are too hot for too long cause coral to bleach, turning a ghastly white as they expel their algal food source and slowly starve to death.
UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".
... not helpful
One of the issues with Greenpeace and indeed quite a few "environmental groups" is they were founded on the basis of, often for the specific purpose of, opposing nuclear and/or hydro.
One of the issues with Greenpeace and indeed quite a few "environmental groups" is they were founded on the basis of, often for the specific purpose of, opposing nuclear and/or hydro.
Climate change is decidedly inconvenient for any organisation whose own past involved promoting fossil fuels as preferable to some non-fossil alternative, indeed at least two high profile organisations were still doing that well after the CO2 issue came to mainstream attention.
Personally well I don't hate them but I don't put them up on a pedestal either. Liberal, Labor, Greens, Greenpeace, fossil fuel lobbyists and so on have far more in common than they do to separate them really. They all in practice aren't keen on ending the use of fossil fuels no matter what they might claim.
Politics is a filthy game no matter who's involved.
As discussed and argued here on ASF eons ago, it is absolutely y12 level education to prove current levels of CO2 or even a 10% increase can not in any way bring a significant increase of temperature.
Is that "average" maxima?in southern Australia the average temp is about 22 degrees, or so.
However, in Queensland, the average temp is about 30 degrees, about eight degrees warmer..
But like so much of the virtue signalling, the reality is somewhat different from the virtue.BlackRock’s decision to divest from coal, as the world’s largest asset manager with a long shareholder history of voting against climate action, sends a powerful signal. By mid-2020 BlackRock’s $1.8tn of actively managed funds will divest from any firm generating more than 25% of revenue from thermal coal. Further reviews of sectors heavily reliant on thermal coal will also take place. Tim Buckley, Tom Sanzillo and Melissa Brown at IEEFA welcome the move but criticise the fact that there is little sign of divestment extending to its passively managed indexed funds, fixed income and real asset portfolios. And they note that concern for the climate is not the only driver. Coal firms in major markets are performing poorly and struggling to deliver to their shareholders. Meanwhile, decarbonising and clean energy firms are becoming stock market favourites as the Transition gains pace. The authors run through BlackRock’s plans and names the coal firms across the globe that are under threat. They also point to the energy firms, until recently heavily into fossil fuels, that are decarbonising successfully and beating the stock market.
The world’s largest fund manager announced overnight it is cutting companies that derive a quarter or more of their profits from thermal coal from its actively managed portfolios, in response to climate change.
In his annual letter to CEOs, BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink announced a globally significant policy that strongly flags this US$7 trillion investor powerhouse is finally starting to align its portfolios with the Paris Agreement.
When BlackRock announced this month it was signing up for Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to ensure the world’s largest corporate emitters take necessary action on climate change, the global financial response suggested this was probably no more than greenwash, given BlackRock’s long history of voting against climate action in shareholder resolutions.
Fink’s CEO letter, however, starts with a clear reference to BlackRock’s ‘fiduciary duty’ to its investors. BlackRock’s own analysis shows global financial markets will be materially impacted by climate change, reflected in the Bank of England’s analysis of $20 trillion at risk. BlackRock concludes this stranded asset risk is not yet priced into the market, so as a fiduciary, BlackRock really has no choice but to act.
Nothing to see here, move right along.As of January 2021, 439 investors have invested shares and bonds worth $19.6 billion in Chinese GCEL companies, surpassing Chinese domestic financial investments by $2 billion.
The largest global companies investing in Chinese coal companies are US firms BlackRock, with $2.7 billion, and Vanguard, with $2.2 billion. In third place is the Qatar Investment Authority, with $1.7 billion. US investors were in an overall lead with a total of $11.5 billion in bonds and equities of Chinese GCEL companies.
The first post in this thread was in 2009,
Here is a video from the same year- Jon kerry saying that there would be the first ice free Arctic summer.
Another failed climate alarmist prediction.
Mick
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?