The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say

[basketcase]

this is from the original independent UK. report....

News article, contradicted by the news article you linked to. Yes, some fringe scientists has dire predictions and the Independent used the headlines to sell copy. Do you really think that one article can be used to dismiss the masses of scientific evidence?

p.s. Do you have the full unedited article or is it just screenshots?

 

[basketcase]

This is a silly approach, blame the guy who pumps the oil vs the guy why drives the car?

Blame them too. What's your point?

Speaking of the "follow the money" tag line, blindly accepting a few widely contradicted papers funded by the people who make the most money from CO2 sounds a bit gullible.

 

[basketcase]

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly ...

I love it when people take scientific papers pointing out flaws and pretend they are evidence of a contrary theory.

Of course global temperature measurements aren't exact but they clearly show a trend. It is embarrassing that you think our measurement techniques are getting better is somehow evidence that climate change is a hoax.

 

[JohnLarue]

This 'debate' you keep talking about is non-existent.

According to you
And we all know what that is worth

There is no legit alternate theory to anthropogenic climate change and the best you can supply are wacko and wrong pieces from kooks funded by the fossil fuel industry.
For proof, I challenge you to provide the strongest alternate theory to the increase in global temp that we are experiencing.

Show me the science and claims that explain what we see around us right now.
(excuse me while I go put on the popcorn)

How about the one where the earths climate has been constantly changing for the last 4.5 Billion years & is expected to continue to change

 

[PornAddict]

I love it when people take scientific papers pointing out flaws and pretend they are evidence of a contrary theory.

Of course global temperature measurements aren't exact but they clearly show a trend. It is embarrassing that you think our measurement techniques are getting better is somehow evidence that climate change is a hoax.

Use your common sense ! Temperatures at the equator cannot be zero degree Celsius !!! Farienheit temperature reported and use as Celsius.
That by itself show the it is fraudulent or incompetent research done by so called government climate scientists !!!

For once open your eyes and start to think for yourself !!

I remembered NASA scientists mixed up newtons vs with pounds or Kilometres with miles when they send their rocket to mars.( Metric mishap caused loss of NASA Mars climate orbiter).

See video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urcQAKKAAl0

Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error
October 01, 1999|ROBERT LEE HOTZ | TIMES SCIENCE WRITER


NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

A navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the metric system of millimeters and meters in its calculations, while Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, which designed and built the spacecraft, provided crucial acceleration data in the English system of inches, feet and pounds.

As a result, JPL engineers mistook acceleration readings measured in English units of pound-seconds for a metric measure of force called newton-seconds.

In a sense, the spacecraft was lost in translation.

"That is so dumb," said John Logsdon, director of George Washington University's space policy institute. "There seems to have emerged over the past couple of years a systematic problem in the space community of insufficient attention to detail."


PS Attention to details IS Important!! Are you so blind leftie ideology to willingly to swallow whatever bullshit that the left have to offer??Are you stupid???

 

[Frankfooter]

You know whats funny Frankie, when you were still posting as groggy you repeatedly stated that weather =/= climate, and that climate temperatures can only be taken over many decades (I think you said something like 40 or 50 years). And yet here you are taking a 16-year weather data sample, and passing that off as climate.

See the contradiction??

Phil, that's a really fucking stupid post.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000.
That means that these are the warmest years since humans started recording temperature.
Its not a '16 year sample'

So stupid.

 

[Frankfooter]

How about the one where the earths climate has been constantly changing for the last 4.5 Billion years & is expected to continue to change

Of course it changes.
You post incredibly obvious statements as if nobody in the world, including all of science, have ever thought of these incredibly basic ideas.

What your idiotic post misses is that humanity has come into existence inside an interglacial climate. Yes, the climate changes and has over the billions of years of the planet.
But fucking with it and making it change at the geologically speedy rate we are doing now is taking the climate out of a rare, fairly stable climate and turning it into a very unstable climate.

The big question is whether you are ok with screwing over the climate of the world your kids will live in (should some woman be so unfortunate as to breed with you).

 

[bver_hunter]

Talk about "brainwashed."

In fact, the United States led the world in carbon reductions in 2017, far surpassing every other country.

The biggest increases were in China and India, notwithstanding Barack Obama's supposedly "historic" agreement with China a few years ago.

Canada's emissions also increased in 2017, despite Justin Trudeau's virtue signalling.

You say that the USA reductions in CO2 emissions are the best in the world. It is true that the U.S. has put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other country, and that U.S. per capita emissions are among the highest in the world. But it is also true that the U.S. won't solve this problem alone (even if it weren't dropping out of global climate treaties).

Regardless of the actions taken by developed countries, the primary driver of carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades will be areas of the world with huge populations, but with low, and growing per capita emissions. A small increase in those per capita emissions can result in a huge increase in overall emissions -- amply demonstrated by Asia Pacific's skyrocketing emissions.

Thus, the most pressing need in the world today is to ensure that countries can develop without a heavy reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, because this is the reason for the status quo.

 

[JohnLarue]

Of course it changes.
You post incredibly obvious statements as if nobody in the world, including all of science, have ever thought of these incredibly basic ideas.

What your idiotic post misses is that humanity has come into existence inside an interglacial climate. Yes, the climate changes and has over the billions of years of the planet.
But fucking with it and making it change at the geologically speedy rate we are doing now is taking the climate out of a rare, fairly stable climate and turning it into a very unstable climate.

The big question is whether you are ok with screwing over the climate of the world your kids will live in (should some woman be so unfortunate as to breed with you).

Maybe 200 years of recorded temp history vs. 4,5 B years of ever changing climate & you know with 100% accuracy that the changes are all down to man?
No! lots of room for reasonable doubt there

What your idiotic post misses is that humanity has come into existence inside an interglacial climate.

So what?
As pointed out the last ice age was 2.5 millions years in length & apparent lasted until 10,000 years ago
Even with very questionable dating techniques & a lot of extrapolation the data covers less than 20-25% of that time period & there have been multiple ice ages & thawing periods with multiple mini cycles with in each
One can describe the timing of humanity entering within a larger thawing period or within a cooling period if viewed from withing one of the minicycles

geologically speedy rate

WTF does that mean?
Do you know for certain what the rate of change should be?
After all you have 200 years of recorded data at your disposal
Does that equip you to definitely know how quickly the earths climate should be changing?
Any chance the rate of change has been constant over the past 4.5 Billion years & will remain constant ex-man???
No
So how can you isolate mans impact?
you cant

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Phil, that's a really fucking stupid post.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000.
That means that these are the warmest years since humans started recording temperature.
Its not a '16 year sample'

So stupid

Okay Frankie, you must have been drunk when you posted that.
Uhm Frankie, the powers to be started keeping temperature records a long time before the year 2000.

Now Frankie, admit you're drunk. Do it now, so we can all move along!! :wave: :very_drunk:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Thus, the most pressing need in the world today is to ensure that countries can develop without a heavy reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, because this is the reason for the status quo.

In the absence of any convincing evidence, I'm not persuaded that fossil fuels pose an existential threat to the planet.

Nonetheless, if you seriously want to reduce man-made carbon emissions, your only hope is to invest in new technology and research, as Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out numerous times.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-change-report-editorials-debates/1595137002/

The most foolish thing world leaders can do is sink money into wind and solar power, which is hugely expensive and doesn't even begin to produce sufficient supplies of energy to replace fossil fuels. Even worse, the skyrocketing energy prices that pay for renewable energy hurt low-income people the most, as the former Liberal government in Ontario reluctantly discovered.

Carbon pricing is also futile and almost certain to do more harm than good.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, some fringe scientists has dire predictions and the Independent used the headlines to sell copy.

"Fringe scientists" is a political term, not a scientific one. It is a political attempt to marginalize scientific opinions that you don't like.

Consider James Lovelock, who proposed the Gaia hypothesis.

He was one of the "save the planet" crowd's biggest heroes. That was up until a few years ago, when he spoke the "inconvenient truth" and publicly stated that the Earth's temperature had not warmed as predicted by the climate researchers.

I guess he went from hero to "fringe scientist" when he veered from the man-made global warming orthodoxy. No wonder he refers to climate research as it exists today as a religion, rather than science.

BTW, you can't have more than one "point of no return." If you believe the IPCC's latest predictions are correct, then you must also believe the previous predictions were completely wrong. You can't return from a point of no return.

 

[Frankfooter]

Okay Frankie, you must have been drunk when you posted that.
Uhm Frankie, the powers to be started keeping temperature records a long time before the year 2000.

Now Frankie, admit you're drunk. Do it now, so we can all move along!! :wave: :very_drunk:

Phil, did you read your own post?

And yet here you are taking a 16-year weather data sample, and passing that off as climate.

See the contradiction??

Phil, that's a really fucking stupid post.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000.
That means that these are the warmest years since humans started recording temperature.
Its not a '16 year sample'

So stupid.

Your post stated that I was using a 16 year sampling period when I said since humans have recorded the global temperature 16 of the 17 warmest years all happened since 2000.
I sincerely hope that you were drunk yourself when you made your comment, otherwise I'll just have to conclude you're really stupid.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Fringe scientists" is a political term, not a scientific one. It is a political attempt to marginalize scientific opinions that you don't like.

No, its an accurate description of scientists whose work is shoddy, outside their fields and wrong.
I challenged you yesterday to show us a solid theory that explains the global rise in temperature from your 'fringe scientists' and you couldn't.
The truth is that there is no other explanation for the changes to the planet's climate other then anthropogenic change.

 

[Frankfooter]

Maybe 200 years of recorded temp history vs. 4,5 B years of ever changing climate & you know with 100% accuracy that the changes are all down to man?
No! lots of room for reasonable doubt there

I have given you the numbers over and over again.
97% of scientists who study the climate agree with 95% certainty that man is changing the climate.

The research, numbers and explanations are all posted here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Your 'the climate always changes' is akin to arguing that cars will always crash so therefore there is no need to steer.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Phil, that's a really fucking stupid post.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000

Uhm but YEAH, they started recording temperatures many decades before that, you genius.

DUH!!!

 

[JohnLarue]

I have given you the numbers over and over again.
97% of scientists who study the climate agree with 95% certainty that man is changing the climate.

The research, numbers and explanations are all posted here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Your 'the climate always changes' is akin to arguing that cars will always crash so therefore there is no need to steer.

So we can agree that you understand next to nothing of the science of this issue and that you rely upon the opinions of others
Which makes you nothing more than a sheep bleating out the word "denier"
your absolute opinion & especially your criticism of alternative are completely invalid as you do not understand what you preach about

Your 'the climate always changes' is akin to arguing that cars will always crash so therefore there is no need to steer.

That is absurd.
Recorded history of 200 years vs 4.5 B years as an evolving planet / climate?
The only logical conclusion is the time reference is miniscule & any conclusion based upon such a reference can not be precise and therefore it can not be an absolute conclusion
Thus you have zero justification in labelling anyone who does not agree with you as a denier

 

[Frankfooter]

Uhm but YEAH, they started recording temperatures many decades before that, you genius.

DUH!!!

Phil, try reading this a bit slower this time. Stop and think about what each word means and then see if you can understand the whole sentence.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000.

Think about that again, now read the next sentence.
That means that yes, since humans started recording the temperature of the planet, roughly 1880, the 16 of the 17 warmest years all happened after 2000.

Or for those who aren't so smart:

16 of the 17 warmest years since 1880 have happened in the last 17 years.
And for those who have problems with words and/or english here's a nice picture.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-16-17-warmest-years-record-occurred-2001

 

[basketcase]

...

PS Attention to details IS Important!! Are you so blind leftie ideology to willingly to swallow whatever bullshit that the left have to offer??Are you stupid???

Are you so blind with alt-right identity that you completely ignore science and automatically assume anything you don't like is a conspiracy theory?

Sorry but random errors don't change the vast amount of data that shows the world is warming and that human activity are playing a significant role.

 

[basketcase]

...

How about the one where the earths climate has been constantly changing for the last 4.5 Billion years & is expected to continue to change

Of course it is.

The problem that you miss is even though the planet will easily survive, our society is based on current climactic conditions. If those conditions continue to change rapidly then we will not be able to adapt.