The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking

[skookerasbil]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

 

[westwall]

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

When the crop failures that we presently see happening increase the cost of food significantly, there are people in the third world nations that are presently dieing because of that increase.

Actually they are dying because some jackass figured that corn would be better used to make biofuel at a ridiculous cost (thus higher profit for the farmers) than to feed people. Typical enviro program geared towards population reduction....Can't have those damned darkies around don't you know.

For a group to proclaim how much they care about people they sure are a racist bunch.

 

[westwall]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

trakar and intellectual honesty do not a pair make.

 

[Trakar]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Without harbors to unload the equipment and seed, roads to bring the seed and equipment to the farm lands, storage facillities and processing facilities to help foodstuffs stretch beyond harvest time, powerplants and electrical grids, schools to train workers and mechanics to repair the equipment,...without this, the seed and equipment are of little help, except for the cash they'd provide sold on the international blackmarket.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Without harbors to unload the equipment and seed, roads to bring the seed and equipment to the farm lands, storage facillities and processing facilities to help foodstuffs stretch beyond harvest time, powerplants and electrical grids, schools to train workers and mechanics to repair the equipment,...without this, the seed and equipment are of little help, except for the cash they'd provide sold on the international blackmarket.

They must build those harbors, roads and storage facilities. Why must it always be us? I thought they wanted us GONE and hated our guts. They need to help themselves or face the reality that things aren't getting any better.

Certainly they wanted to run their own nations? Well, here you go.

 

[Trakar]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Without harbors to unload the equipment and seed, roads to bring the seed and equipment to the farm lands, storage facillities and processing facilities to help foodstuffs stretch beyond harvest time, powerplants and electrical grids, schools to train workers and mechanics to repair the equipment,...without this, the seed and equipment are of little help, except for the cash they'd provide sold on the international blackmarket.

They must build those harbors, roads and storage facilities.

The issue isn't who builds what, the issue is that if these people do not have the appropriate infrastructure and skilled labor force, sending them seed and equipment accomplishes little and may even make matters worse through stimulating theft, corruption and regional black markets. Better to use the aid funds to begin establishing the infrastructure. Hiring and training locals to actually construct the improvements.

Personally, I could care less whether or not we provide aid to other nations, I think the benefits are generally much greater than the costs (which are relatively miniscule), but it isn't an ideological issue with me.

All that I am saying is that if you are going to give aid and assistance put a little thought into it and give aid and assistance that is actually going to help people to improve their lot in life rather than giving things that are of little use to them and which may actually make their lot in life worse.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environmentalist radicals are in need of coming up with a Plan B because Plan A has been an abyssmal failure..................

But dont take my word for it..............read it in this mornings REALCLEARENERGY............

Climate of Failure - By Roger Pielke Jr. | Foreign Policy



As I have been saying for a long time...........LOSING

 

[daveman]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

The Debate Is Over Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone

"If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over."
​

So, how's that whole I-get-to-define-reality thing working out for you?

 

[daveman]

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

When the crop failures that we presently see happening increase the cost of food significantly, there are people in the third world nations that are presently dieing because of that increase.

Actually they are dying because some jackass figured that corn would be better used to make biofuel at a ridiculous cost (thus higher profit for the farmers) than to feed people. Typical enviro program geared towards population reduction....Can't have those damned darkies around don't you know.

For a group to proclaim how much they care about people they sure are a racist bunch.

Not to mention the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico increased corn production for biofuels is creating.

Good job, lefty environmentalists!

 

[Trakar]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

The Debate Is Over Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone

"If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over."
​

So, how's that whole I-get-to-define-reality thing working out for you?

Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -

Extremely likely (>95%)

Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------

Very Likely (>90%)

This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).

Very Likely (>90%)

All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------

​

of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.

​

 

[daveman]

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

The Debate Is Over Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone

"If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over."
​

So, how's that whole I-get-to-define-reality thing working out for you?

Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -

Extremely likely (>95%)

Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------

Very Likely (>90%)

This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).

Very Likely (>90%)

All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------

​

of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.

​

Need some help moving the goalposts?

You said no one said the debate was over.

Your only possible response was, "Yes, I was wrong. Someone did say the debate was over."

But like most cultists, you're unable to admit when you're wrong.

 

[IGetItAlready]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

Gore made the proclamation, "the debate is over" and: HERE is ONE of many examples of the books being cooked.

Of course the U of Colorado claims their addition was made to account for fact that the earth’s land masses are constantly growing upward. The group's director, Steve Nerem explains that the correction is “a nonissue and certainly not newsworthy…” as it will only amount to a one inch increase in sea level over 100 years.

HOWEVER, the IPCC claims that the sea level has only risen by 1.0-2.5mm/year or about 4-9 inches over the past 100 years. Other sources estimates fall somewhere inside the 4-9 inches/year. Either way the Colorado research group’s addition of 0.3mm will by itself amount to an increase of 10-25% conservatively.

Does anyone believe the global warming alarmists are going to simply overlook a 10-25% change in anything?

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

Gore made the proclamation, "the debate is over" and: HERE is ONE of many examples of the books being cooked.

Of course the U of Colorado claims their addition was made to account for fact that the earth’s land masses are constantly growing upward. The group's director, Steve Nerem explains that the correction is “a nonissue and certainly not newsworthy…” as it will only amount to a one inch increase in sea level over 100 years.

HOWEVER, the IPCC claims that the sea level has only risen by 1.0-2.5mm/year or about 4-9 inches over the past 100 years. Other sources estimates fall somewhere inside the 4-9 inches/year. Either way the Colorado research group’s addition of 0.3mm will by itself amount to an increase of 10-25% conservatively.

Does anyone believe the global warming alarmists are going to simply overlook a 10-25% change in anything?

Care to back that assertation up with some science articles?

 

[westwall]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Without harbors to unload the equipment and seed, roads to bring the seed and equipment to the farm lands, storage facillities and processing facilities to help foodstuffs stretch beyond harvest time, powerplants and electrical grids, schools to train workers and mechanics to repair the equipment,...without this, the seed and equipment are of little help, except for the cash they'd provide sold on the international blackmarket.

That's funny. We landed an entire invasion army in the face of massive firepower without the use of a harbor (which the British thought couldn't be done), and you're going to tell me that landing some grain when no one is shooting you is beyond our capabilities?

 

[westwall]

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

Gore made the proclamation, "the debate is over" and: HERE is ONE of many examples of the books being cooked.

Of course the U of Colorado claims their addition was made to account for fact that the earth’s land masses are constantly growing upward. The group's director, Steve Nerem explains that the correction is “a nonissue and certainly not newsworthy…” as it will only amount to a one inch increase in sea level over 100 years.

HOWEVER, the IPCC claims that the sea level has only risen by 1.0-2.5mm/year or about 4-9 inches over the past 100 years. Other sources estimates fall somewhere inside the 4-9 inches/year. Either way the Colorado research group’s addition of 0.3mm will by itself amount to an increase of 10-25% conservatively.

Does anyone believe the global warming alarmists are going to simply overlook a 10-25% change in anything?

Care to back that assertation up with some science articles?

Gosh you're a doofus. Can you not remember anything, or are you so intelectually dishonest that no fact will change your mind?



"Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) —a panel of more than 2,500 scientists and other experts—wrote in its first report on the physical science of global warming earlier this year. In its second assessment, the IPCC stated that human-induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, from species migration to thawing permafrost. Despite these findings, emissions of the greenhouse gases driving this process continue to rise thanks to increased burning of fossil fuels while cost-effective options for decreasing them have not been adopted, the panel found in its third report."
State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario: Scientific American

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, you dumb ass, the man stated that the continents were constantly growing upward. Or perhaps you believe that to be the case also?

 

[Katzndogz]

The debate should have been over when the phonied up data was exposed in the East Anglia e-mails.

 

[IGetItAlready]

The debate should have been over when the phonied up data was exposed in the East Anglia e-mails.

Another excellent example Katz.
We've reached a point where the examples are too numerous to list.

Alarmists can believe in man made global warming all they like. But they should at least have the courage and confidence in their position to NOT play the "I don't remember that" game.
Nothing more than a determination to remain ignorant.

 

[Old Rocks]

In reality, the debate is over as to whether GHGs cause warming. That was settled by Tyndall in 1858. Now at to the pace of the warming, where and how it's effects will take place, there is open debate on that presently going on among the serious scientific community. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, as the evidence of real climate change is affecting everything from the infrastructure around them to the prices in the grocery store.

 

[IGetItAlready]

Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.

Most ironic post I've seen here to date...