Climate Change

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Some people won’t be capable of understanding either?

User interface "the point of human-computer interaction and communication in a device."

Irony "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning”"

Joke "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline."

Hope this helps…

No, if you have to explain how they work, they’re not that good.

In so far as, I didn’t see the irony in your post, but feel free to explain it.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Another intelligent contribution to the debate....

Yes, your contributions are top-notch eh, just like your doom-laden comment,

The climate is screwed irretrievably.

How exactly is it irretrievable, Sherlock?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

How exactly is it irretrievable, Sherlock?

Have a read up on climate change tipping points. You might learn something. The point beyond even if we made all the changes necessary it' becomes a roller coaster we can't stop.

It's elementary Watson....

https://climatescience.org/advanced-...tipping-points

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Have a read up on climate change tipping points. You might learn something. The point beyond even if we made all the changes necessary it' becomes a roller coaster we can't stop.

It's elementary Watson....

https://climatescience.org/advanced-...tipping-points

Have a read up on these and relax a little bit, work to be done but it’s not the end of the world.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-.../dp/0063001691

https://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Alarm...c=1&th=1&psc=1

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Have a read up on these and relax a little bit, work to be done but it’s not the end of the world.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-.../dp/0063001691

https://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Alarm...c=1&th=1&psc=1

Interesting note about the author of the first book:

A 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promoted Apocalypse Never, was analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project. The reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change." Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy for The Breakthrough Institute, wrote that Shellenberger "includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive."

What is interesting is that denying that climate change is real and affecting is a sort of reverse Pascal's wager. You can see that majority scientific consensus concludes that it is real and we face imminent danger yet denial is the option chosen for some. Maybe some can only accept reality when it is present and not pending?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Interesting note about the author of the first book:

Yes, critiqued by:……..

was analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project.

No doubt an independent balanced outfit.

While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive.

That, right there, is a position not based in science in anyway.

Translated as “Even though it might be true we’re overdoing it………….down playing it doesn’t fit our narrative which might be problematic.”

What is interesting is that denying that climate change is real and affecting is a sort of reverse Pascal's wager. You can see that majority scientific consensus concludes that it is real and we face imminent danger yet denial is the option chosen for some. Maybe some can only accept reality when it is present and not pending?

No one is denying Climate Change is real!!!…..

But it is not an Emergency, apocalypse etc etc.

It is manageable without destroying western global civilisations and economies

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, critiqued by:……..



No doubt an independent balanced outfit.



That, right there, is a position not based in science in anyway.

Translated as “Even though it might be true we’re overdoing it………….down playing it doesn’t fit our narrative which might be problematic.”



No one is denying Climate Change is real!!!…..

But it is not an Emergency, apocalypse etc etc.

It is manageable without destroying western global civilisations and economies

I did look at Climate Feedback and their process seem fair:

Typically, a story will be reviewed for CF by five or six scientists, but on one story there were 17 reviewers. According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years.[8][9] However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer.

The method was called "expert crowdsourcing" or a form of "elevated crowdsourcing" by Poynter's International Fact-Check Network.

You seem to be happy that Climate Change exists but as long as it does not cost (you) any money.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You seem to be happy that Climate Change exists but as long as it does not cost (you) any money.

Close, My position is that climate change ( and we can debate all the inputs to that) is indeed a real phenomenon, but the effects are manageable and we don’t have to bankrupt ourselves chasing the end of the rainbow that is “net-zero” which is unachievable.

There’s another thread on this forum titled “energy crisis”, that energy crisis has been precipitated in part because of this race to expensive unreliable renewable types of generation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Close, My position is that climate change ( and we can debate all the inputs to that) is indeed a real phenomenon, but the effects are manageable and we don’t have to bankrupt ourselves chasing the end of the rainbow that is “net-zero” which is unachievable.

There’s another thread on this forum titled “energy crisis”, that energy crisis has been precipitated in part because of this race to expensive unreliable renewable types of generation.

Come on now Pierre, the energy crisis had everything to do with relying on Russia and the Middle Eastern countries to play nice and let the "market" work for us. They worked out they could rinse us and we got left exposed.

That's not the green agenda at play.

There's no such thing as the world (or western economies) bankrupting itself. Actually renewables presents a great opportunity to become independent. Of course that requires massive investment, but one that pays off in the long run.

Of course there's a lot of financial interest in us not doing that. The same old same old of burning oil and gas is billions a year for the incumbents.

That's not to say of course there's not money input from the other side who stand to gain from investment in renewables.

What's in our interest (as in me, you and the other little guys down here just living and working away) is almost undoubtedly somewhere in-between.

[Mr K]

I see politicians from all sides are falling over themselves trying to downgrade climate pledges. All because of 1 by-election result. They never look more than 5 years ahead. Maybe what's happening in Greece and Europe this summer is a clue? Or the first 2 weeks of July being the hottest for the planet on record? Climate change will do for us all regardless of political party.

And before anyone says this doesn't affect us, where do you think the millions of climate refugees will be heading?

[ianch99]

Looking at the current Atlantic temperatures plus the Antarctic sea ice extent, we may be too late to stop this progression of extreme weather events. It always came down to trusting the science but the problem was that the change needed cost money, a lot of money. It also involved collaboration at a world level which is problematic.

The irony is that the people with the money that may have made a difference will burn alongside the plebs

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------



---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

Note about the sea ice:

Its Winter in Antarctic and shockingly,almost 2 million kilometers² (about 772,000 miles²) less sea ice in Antarctica compared to same point last year
Even most dire climate models did not predict this to happen until at least 2050

[Sephiroth]

Isn't climate change a repeating natural process, maybe brought forward 150 years by man's activity?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Isn't climate change a repeating natural process, maybe brought forward 150 years by man's activity?

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

No, that would be the science of a simpleton.

The current out of control warming has happened over decades not hundreds of thousands of years.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

No, that would be the science of a simpleton.

The current out of control warming has happened over decades not hundreds of thousands of years.

Well, if you look at the graphs, if the had been Cableforum 140,000 years ago there would have been out-of-control warnings.

Originally Posted by Mr K

No, that would be the science of a simpleton.

No it would not, the fact is the planet has undergone many climate changes, and is currently in one of its coldest spells, and warming up. As said, we may be speeding that process up, but it would happen anyway.