The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

It's Later Than We Think Options
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2018 11:13:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population...The report was written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies. The Paris agreement set out to prevent warming of more than 3.6 degrees above preindustrial levels — long considered a threshold for the most severe social and economic damage from climate change. But the heads of small island nations, fearful of rising sea levels, had also asked scientists to examine the effects of 2.7 degrees of warming...“This report makes it clear: There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University and an author of the report.

My grans will be in their forties.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
palapaguy
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2018 9:59:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,170
Neurons: 10,850
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
But wasn't climate change occurring at times during the pre-industrial era?
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 3:39:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
People are afraid of or complain about the economic costs of regulations to stem climate change. Yet via Physics World's review of the #IPCC Special Report on Global Warming, the preliminary news is that it is actually the opposite.

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-the-why-the-what-and-the-how/

Preliminary findings certainly indicate that there are substantial economic benefits associated with meeting the 1.5 °C target. In a paper published in Nature in May 2018, Marshall Burke from Stanford University, US, and his colleagues, calculated that meeting the 1.5 °C target by the end of this century, instead of the more common 2 °C goal, would save the world $20 trillion.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
palapaguy
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:55:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,170
Neurons: 10,850
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
Still waiting for an answer to my question:

"But wasn't climate change occurring at times during the pre-industrial era?"
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:43:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 982
Neurons: 478,627
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Yes, there was climate change in pre-industrial times. You can read about it here.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:35:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Economists win Nobel Prize for climate change ideas.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economists-who-changed-thinking-on-climate-change-win-nobel-prize/

"Romer, who is at the NYU Stern School of Business in New York, was honoured for his work on the role of technological change in economic growth. The economist is best-known for his studies on how market forces and economic decisions facilitate technological change. His ‘endogenous growth theory’, developed in the 1990s, opened new avenues of research on how policies and regulations can prompt new ideas and economic innovation.
And Romer’s work also has implications for policies relating to climate-change mitigation. “He showed clearly that unregulated free markets will not sufficiently invest in research and development activities,” says Edenhofer."

:::

Over half of global industrial emissions since human-induced climate change was officially recognized can be traced to just 25 corporate and state producing entities.

25 CEOs. 25 Boards of Directors.

When we talk about climate change, we need to be calling them out by name. Not to stop them, but to lower/stop their pollution or they pay to clean it up. That's how things always work. If you want to use anything, you pay. They are using the air we all breathe from which to profit monetarily. If you want to play golf, you pay fees. Non users do not pay.

https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:43:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
The latest damning UN wake-up call report on climate change was front page coverage on the Toronto Star this morning.

Yet further on in the Star was an article about the newly elected far right-wing Ontario premier out west joining hands with premiers or wannabe premiers from there fighting the federal government's climate change plan - which would be sending the money back to the provinces. Ottawa will just keep the money. I forget how many million Ontario will lose. But the premier's supporters think that is saving THEM money. Somehow. Because he told them it would and they believed him. Sound familiar?

Plus - the majority of the top 50 newspapers across the United States did not feature any homepage coverage of a landmark United Nations climate change report after its release.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
palapaguy
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 8:33:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,170
Neurons: 10,850
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
Yes, there was climate change in pre-industrial times. You can read about it here.


Thank you.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 12:50:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
And for anyone interested in hearing the other side of this:

IPCC Doubles Down

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:34:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,140
Neurons: 176,780
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thanks FounDit.

It would have been a bit more effective if I hadn't been so distracted by the banner "Mock the Loony Left".

Is it impossible for Americans to report anything without trying to destroy, mock, ridicule, humiliate or suppress anything the reporter disagrees with?


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:36:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Thanks FounDit.

It would have been a bit more effective if I hadn't been so distracted by the banner "Mock the Loony Left".

Is it impossible for Americans to report anything without trying to destroy, mock, ridicule, humiliate or suppress anything the reporter disagrees with?


That's odd. I can't find that banner anywhere on the page. I thought perhaps it was because I run a script-blocker and ad blocker but even when I permit full page permissions I don't see it.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think so, especially in the hyper-partisan environment that has been created in the last two decades or so.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 6:23:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I saw the "loony" title too. Yes, it is typical these days, unfortunately.

But it is an ad the source, the "National Review" gets money for on their website. I don't think it is meant to be connected to the article.


The article itself on the link is an ideological and mostly economic argument trying to refute scientific facts. Arguments that have been allowed to slow down mitigation for decades so that now the time gets shorter and shorter and the necessary changes harder and harder which to procrastinators appear alarmist.

In refutation -

No exaggeration/Not Suppressing Info/Cautious Understatements Typical


How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:23:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Years ago, in protest to announcements by scientists that they were increasingly certain climate change was anthropogenic, corporations and special interests, who opposed all government regulation, spent millions, now billions, on lobbying, advertising, and “reports” that mimicked scientific publications - and people began to listen to them in America. This delay for many decades is why some of us are facing the reality of what is actually happening now.

Just so the source on the link is known and you can evaluate for yourself the concepts in the story, The National Review Institute is one of those organizations still using concerted effort to oppose climate regulation. It is not just some free lance writer's opinion, nor is there any science involved.

The National Review has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation as well as grants from the right-wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports the Bradley Foundation helps fund groups opposing climate regulation.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

Media Bias says the "National Review" is extreme right, almost to the end of the arrow. They say they use loaded words that may be emotional or stereotypical, misquote, use debunked information, make false claims, publish misleading reports, omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes, and may be untrustworthy. Finally, story selection always favors the right, while painting liberal policy negatively.

Drago, so no wonder they accept such ads as "Mock the Loony Left". It looks as if it is a campaign ad.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:25:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
DragOnspeaker,

I finally noticed the banner you mentioned. I thought it was on the page side but when I unblocked, I saw it.

It's a satirical piece written by Katherine Timpf for National Review's annual fund drive, and has no connection to the piece written below it. In her piece, she points out some of the loony stuff the Far Left is promoting, and uses those things to mock them, suggesting donations will help fight such foolishness.

National Review is, indeed, a Conservative site which presents ideas (usually, but not always) which once were the mainstream thinking of the population (and still is, IMO).

The Political Left castigates and dismisses them, and anyone who reads it or listens to them, but that's no surprise since they seem to believe everyone must agree with them.

This is what happens whenever any one group achieves power and holds it for too long a time. It's why there must be alternative groups and ideas that can be peacefully changed out from time to time; except those who hold power don't always want to peacefully let it go, as we see today.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 2:42:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Since the topic is climate change, here is an interesting thought:

What is the perfect temperature for the Earth?

Is is 3 degrees cooler? 5 degrees cooler? 3 degrees warmer? 2 degrees warmer?

How do you know? How does anyone know but that we might be heading for the perfect temperature - or not?

In 1998, Al Gore said we only had ten years left to us.

In 1993, the UN said we only had ten years left to us.

Today, we're told we only have twelve years left.

I suppose all the climate change believers are preparing their children and grandchildren for their impending deaths.

I'm teaching mine to laugh.

Interesting times we live in.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:08:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Maybe Americans do castigate this alt-right extreme media who don't always tell the truth and always favour the right never trying to be fair. Maybe that is because it is not a news source but an agenda machine bought by billionaires such as the Koch brothers who spend millions lobbying against healthcare and climate science.

But this is what I said here. No castigation. Just facts so people can decide if they believe that particular report without checking facts for themselves. That is, do critical thinking.

Hope123 wrote: "Just so the source on the link is known and you can evaluate for yourself the concepts in the story, The National Review Institute is one of those organizations still using concerted effort to oppose climate regulation."

The earth will survive for millions of years with or without sentient life. It is up to those in charge now to figure out what to do for that life.

BTW - I'm not teaching my granddaughters anything about climate change. I have no idea what they think because they have been taught to think for themselves. I must ask them next time they are home from university where they are getting on with life studying to make money and good lives for themselves and taking courses which will allow them to help others and to do research - with no guidance from me. All I do is love and support them.

There is a middle ground between head-in-the-sand and being paralyzed by fear. My grans are of the third group, the optimist practical group, who help to find solutions to problems.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2018 11:03:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Hope123 wrote:
Maybe Americans do castigate this alt-right extreme media who don't always tell the truth (They tell the truth as they know it, just as you do) and always favour the right never trying to be fair (proof. Where is your proof? That is a blatantly false statement that you cannot back up). Maybe that is because it is not a news source but an agenda machine bought by billionaires such as the Koch brothers who spend millions lobbying against healthcare and climate science.
Well, if being financed by billionaires discredits one as a news source, then there are no news sources, as all of them have billions of dollars in revenue. This would be especially true for those financed by the Left-Wing billionaire George Soros.

But this is what I said here. No castigation. Just facts so people can decide if they believe that particular report without checking facts for themselves. That is, do critical thinking.
No facts. Simply your opinion. Not exactly the same thing.

Hope123 wrote: "Just so the source on the link is known and you can evaluate for yourself the concepts in the story, The National Review Institute is one of those organizations still using concerted effort to oppose climate regulation."
Some proof of that OPINION would be nice. Show everyone exactly HOW they oppose climate change, please, because it looks to me as if they simply have a difference of opinion, like me. Does having a difference in opinion cause one to exert a "concerted effort" also?

The earth will survive for millions of years with or without sentient life. It is up to those in charge now to figure out what to do for that life.
That's assuming something needs to be done, which is not a settled idea except in the minds of the alt-Left (I use that term as you do to identify anyone who disagrees with me on that topic).

BTW - I'm not teaching my granddaughters anything about climate change. I have no idea what they think because they have been taught to think for themselves. I must ask them next time they are home from university where they are getting on with life studying to make money and good lives for themselves and taking courses which will allow them to help others and to do research - with no guidance from me. All I do is love and support them.

There is a middle ground between head-in-the-sand and being paralyzed by fear. My grans are of the third group, the optimist practical group, who help to find solutions to problems.

Really? How can you know this when, in your own words, you "have no idea what they think"?

I'm always amazed at how much effort you put into twisting yourself into knots trying convince everyone of your beliefs. If I so much as mention climate change in passing, you will post 3 to 4 posts to follow up in an attempt to overwhelm any disagreement with the idea. And I don't really mind. People can believe as they choose. It's just hard for me to imagine living in such fear. Oh, well. C'est la vie.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2018 9:19:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: I'm always amazed at how much effort you put into twisting yourself into knots trying convince everyone of your beliefs. If I so much as mention climate change in passing, you will post 3 to 4 posts to follow up in an attempt to overwhelm any disagreement with the idea.

Lol. YOU are the one posting several posts on a thread I started.

In spite of repeated requests by me for you to stop making our discussions personal, you insist upon continuing. So I shall return the favour as politely as possible.

As for the number of my posts, I am interested enough to do the research and get a lot of info worth spreading. And I'm thorough. Maybe you should be amazed at the information and not the number of posts.

Not everything is about you or about trying to overwhelm any disagreement you have. I don't need to. Your POV is in the minority - and dropping. The science has been settled long ago, despite your protests to the contrary. The only discussion now is not "whether" but "what" to do about it.

Nordhaus just won the Nobel Prize for coming up with the idea of carbon tax or cap and trade as the best way to get down our emissions.

There you go with your pet 'fear" theory again. Attributing it to others who have continually told you it is merely a practical matter. Does that POV make you feel strong and powerful that "you're" not afraid and the rest are just "snowflakes"? Or do thou just protest too much?

You should really read and check things before making your usual accusations of no proof and that it was only my opinion. (Especially when you offer no scientific proof yourself.)

I already gave a link with proof along with the statements about the reliability of the National Review and my statements were paraphrased with parts copied from that reliable source.

Again - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

So you don't like democracy and human rights which is what Soros does with HIS money? I see. It now makes sense.

"George Soros has been a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes for more than 30 years. His philanthropic organization, the Open Society Foundations, supports democracy and human rights in more than 100 countries."

I have no idea what my grans think about climate change, but I know their characters and HOW they think and what they do to solve problems. They don't sit around. They face reality and get busy. Stop twisting my words.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2018 10:53:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Lol. I'd better say (so FD doesn't think it has anything to do with him) I was cleaning out some documents and found this in "Pages" on my iPad. I realized I had forgotten that I had done the research but hadn't posted it yet. I found the history interesting, especially that a scientist recognized anthropogenic climate change way back in 1896.

History of Climate Science 1896 to 2007:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/ By Spencer Weart on August 17, 2012

"In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature."

The article goes through the years.

Now ahead to 2001. The world’s governments created a panel of climate experts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It managed in 2001 "to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert or government representative dissented...At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed...How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions."

In 2007 the IPCC reiterated anthropogenic causes, and weather patterns of storms and other disasters since then have become increasingly frequent and more catastrophic.


Various people have warned giving dates about how long we have to do something but it still depends on what steps we take take to restrict emissions. However, they all say that by the end of the century we could expect the planet’s average temperature to rise significantly. And now the ante has been upped.

This article was written eleven years ago and still some economic special interests put an ideological/economic argument on an equal plane with scientific facts while the IPCC publish periodic reports that are ignored no matter how cautious or alarmist they are. What little political will there is is often fought by conservatives in Canada and the US.


For instance, I read a couple of days ago that the new Conservative Ontario Premier just cancelled a half completed wind farm and will have it torn down to keep a campaign promise he made just to get votes and to give payback to some he didn't like when he was on the TO council. With lawsuits because of cancelled signed contracts it will cost Ontario $100 million. Plus all the waste of torn down wind resources. And that is just a starter for all the contracts he's cancelling. Remember Toronto's late crazy mayor, Rob Ford? Well the premier is Doug Ford, his brother. He's Trump Lite.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:22:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Well, I'm not going to wade through all your posts, but your double post does serve as an example of what I said. I got as far as George Soros being a "supporter of democratic ideals and causes", and a "philanthropist" and almost peed myself laughing at the silliness of that idea. That's like saying Karl Marx had some quaint ideas on politics...rotflmao.

But you didn't answer my question about the perfect temperature for the Earth. Do you know what that is? Do any of your so-called "experts" know? I've never seen anyone say, so I have to doubt that anyone knows for certain. So until someone can tell me what, exactly, that temperature should be, I remain skeptical of their panicked speech about our impending doom. And around and around we go. Where we stop, no one knows.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:55:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drawings are obviously not to scale.





If you're a penguin you might disagree with a human "optimal" temperature Whistle which is around the present 14 degrees C, On Average, or maybe a little less with the consequences we are seeing today already.

The "Earth" itself doesn't care about a "Perfect" temperature. Whistle All things being equal it will be here till the sun dies or whatever happens then.

FD, I assume you mean for the sustainability of the human race? Even so a "Perfect" Earth temperature is a very general question so the general no brainer answer is "whatever is optimal for optimal life" of all present creatures. You don't differentiate average or mean. Or where, when, surface or above, city or vegetation, close to or deep in the ocean. Someone living on an island would disagree with someone inland.

As well, mere survival is not enough. Temperatures for optimal life for all is the goal.


http://readysetthink.net/optimal-earth-temperature/

If you need statistics for a more precise answer when you ask a more precise question, I saw lots of scientific information you could find on science websites or journals. But you have to understand the science and all the data taken into consideration when they measure. Also, I would have to do ten posts Whistle to present all the facts and the necessary proof for those facts which I always try to do - which makes for long and sometimes multiple posts. I also try not to confuse people so I separate ideas into separate posts. Just an explanation as no justification is necessary. (Did you get this far?)

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:55:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, your one unverified sentence about your wet pants and George Soros deserves some answer to stop the spread of vicious conspiracy theories many Americans love.

The Jewish George Soros has many Conspiracy Theories against him spread by the Right. They have to try to discredit him because Soros is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes. He spends his money on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world"...He influenced the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe...

As of February 2018, he had a net worth of $8 billion, after donating $18 billion to his philanthropic agency, Open Society Foundations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-been-a-george-soros-for-every-era-of-antisemitic-panic

(Daily Beast - far left but factual reporting.)


Lol. "Soros, Trump said on Friday, Oct. 5, had paid for “professionally made identical signs” in the hands of women objecting to Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court justiceship. On Tuesday, he followed up by implying that Soros had stiffed these hired “screamers.” In Trump-like fashion, his accusations were a form of mirror-imaging, as Trump himself had paid for people to support his presidential announcement and denied them payment for months, and he appears to have misunderstood a Fox News guest who spoke sarcastically about Soros paying the protesters." Even one of the senators stopped just short of accusing Soros for Ford and the demonstrations.

::
BTW FD - I remembered that you often mention your disbelief in climate models, and yet I assume you put a fair amount of belief in weather forecasts done with models even though they may vary slightly in accuracy as to exact time or exact place. But they do give a fairly accurate general picture, becoming more and more accurate, especially with Doppler and the modern day instruments.


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
will
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:36:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
FounDit wrote:
But you didn't answer my question about the perfect temperature for the Earth. Do you know what that is? Do any of your so-called "experts" know? I've never seen anyone say, so I have to doubt that anyone knows for certain.

According to the overwhelming consensus, including every scientific body of national and international standing, every government on the planet, and just about every multi-national corporation (including Exxon-Mobile) the optimal temperature would be to keep the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

This is the negotiated agreement that takes into account the scientific consensus, world economics, world politics, the health and welfare of humanity as a whole, and the wider environment.

The details of this agreement is precisely worded, freely available and widely reported; anyone who claims to have an informed opinion on this subject, but is not aware of this international agreement would have to have their head in the sand (or up their own arse).

That’s the general answer to your question. More specifically, your question was nonsensical; that’s probably why no one bothered to answer it first time around.

FounDit wrote:
So until someone can tell me what, exactly, that temperature should be, I remain skeptical of their panicked speech about our impending doom. And around and around we go. Where we stop, no one knows.

Ignoring for now the invalidity of your tedious 'doomsday strawman', what would satisfy you as adequately catastrophic to divest you of your scepticism? Would widespread famine due to drought across Africa be enough? How about the flooding of Island States? Or how about increased intensity and frequency of storms, leading localised landslides, flooding, crop failure etc?

Or does something have to effect you personally before it's worthy of your concern, panic, or action?

.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:33:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Following UN on Twitter:

@IPCC_CH co-chair Ko Barrett: The bad news? We've already reached one degree of warming.

The good news? >1.5 degrees is not a foregone conclusion -- we can take action now to limit warming to 1.5C and avoid the worst impacts. Every bit of warming matters #SR15


"Changes on an unprecedented scale."

IPCC co-chair Ko Barrett notes that we have the physical and technological capabilities to limit warming to 1.5C. Do we have the human wherewithal?


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:35:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
LOL...Well, Hope, your charts and you say the temperature is "14 degrees C, On Average, but average isn't exact. That indicates a range. So why the panic over a mere one or two degree shift?

And, btw, will, it isn't me who is creating the straw man. I saw it first in the initial post:

Quote:
The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 [Emphasis FD] All of this with no proof whatsoever.

We're all gonna die!!!





We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:56:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,385
Neurons: 44,801
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Q) The classic, vacuous response of the uneducated: -

"So why the panic over a mere one or two degree shift?"

A)The average temperature of a healthy human is 37
The temp. of someone with a fever is 38
The time for hospitalisation/intense treatment is 39
The time to die of risen temperature is 40

Sheesh! d'oh! Work it out for yourselves.
pasteur
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:49:56 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/19/2014
Posts: 10
Neurons: 119,298
Location: Glendale, Arizona, United States
Ah! The sarcasm! The best friend of the ineptitude!
will
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:18:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote:
... worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040...

misrepresenting the IPCC FounDit wrote:
We're all gonna die!!!

This exactly illustrates my point about your repeated use of the same strawman. You know you don't have to just reply without first thinking. Here's a link explaining what the strawman fallacy means.

So, ignoring for now, again, the invalidity of your tedious 'doomsday strawman' let me rephrase... what would satisfy you as adequately catastrophic to divest you of your scepticism? Would worsening food shortages, most likely effecting the poorest countries and individuals be enough? Or increased frequency and severity of wildfires due to prolonged periods of drought? Or increased intensity and frequency of storms, leading localised landslides, flooding, crop failure etc? Or how about mass die-off of coral reefs?

Or does something have to effect you personally before it's worthy of your concern, panic, or action?

FounDit wrote:
All of this with no proof whatsoever.

If you wish to continually assert that the consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists.


,
will
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:18:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
pasteur wrote:
Ah! The sarcasm! The best friend of the ineptitude!

He said, sarcastically and ineptly -- I think you mean "The best friend of the inept" d'oh!


.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:05:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Climate change is a topic that is often pushed aside in the media and forums as boring. You can't blame people for preferring more sensationalistic topics. We're all human. As well, there is a tendency to try to forget unpopular news that there is a problem that needs to be solved. So it is great to see 846 hits on what was a stalled thread. Applause Applause Applause

Cap and trade has been shown to work in many constituencies without causing that much, if any, economic hardship. In fact in some places it actually improved the economy. Coal is being phased out and green energy has created more jobs than mining. The writing is already on the wall - except in places where Conservatives have taken power as in Ontario - the new premier is going to cost us $3B over four years by cancelling signed green contracts! Who will sign a contract that govt can annul? Investment will go elsewhere as well.

But that's democracy - they chose - although many people I've talked to are regretting their desire for change - any change.

On another thread Will posted about fracking in the UK where there are protests.

But on that thread Proggy started, it is about how Scotland is going completely wind power. Applause Applause Applause

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst185995_Scottish-Power-will-become-100-wind.aspx?find=unread

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:05:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Romany wrote:


Q) The classic, vacuous response of the uneducated: -

"So why the panic over a mere one or two degree shift?"

A)The average temperature of a healthy human is 37
The temp. of someone with a fever is 38
The time for hospitalisation/intense treatment is 39
The time to die of risen temperature is 40

Sheesh! d'oh! Work it out for yourselves.


Unbelievably faulty logic.

Since when is a planet the equivalent of a human being? Do humans have Ice Ages, or generate enough heat to melt continental shelves?

Sheesh, indeed.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:27:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
will wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote:
... worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040...

misrepresenting the IPCC FounDit wrote:
We're all gonna die!!!

This exactly illustrates my point about your repeated use of the same strawman. You know you don't have to just reply without first thinking. Here's a link explaining what the strawman fallacy means.
Nice try, but wrong! My post isn't the straw man, it is the false premise of the IPCC council that the Earth is in danger of "worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040" without offering any proof or evidence that they can possibly know this future.

So, ignoring for now, again, the invalidity of your tedious 'doomsday strawman' (Not my straw man, as I said, but the IPCC's; not an invalid assessment of the fear-mongering of the IPCC, nor "tedious", except in your opinion) let me rephrase... what would satisfy you as adequately catastrophic to divest you of your scepticism? Would worsening food shortages, most likely effecting the poorest countries and individuals be enough? Or increased frequency and severity of wildfires due to prolonged periods of drought? Or increased intensity and frequency of storms, leading localised landslides, flooding, crop failure etc? Or how about mass die-off of coral reefs?
But as all of you are so fond of pointing out, weather is not climate. So all of this is irrelevant.

Or does something have to effect you personally before it's worthy of your concern, panic, or action?
Not at all. In fact, I'm thinking of the whole society and why it would not be in its best interest to give doomsday fear-mongers such as yourself the political power to rule our energy sector.

FounDit wrote:
All of this with no proof whatsoever.

If you wish to continually assert that the consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists.
Negatory, Kemo sabe. It falls to the environmental scientists to provide evidence that they actually know what they are talking about, and how they can possibly know for certain what the climate is going to be in the future. So far, all they have is models which they themselves create.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:36:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
But when you are a member of The Holy Western Church of Climate Change, facts don't matter. You hold tight to your New Testament of "Green and Sustainable", praying to your Savior, the Government for succor; listening to your apostles Al Gore, and Michael Moore; singing the hymn of the IPCC. Slightly paraphrased, I present it below:

🎵
Doom, despair, and agony on me,
Deep dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for Climate Change,
I could live a life of ease,
Doom, despair, and agony on me. 🎵




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 6:50:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,280
Neurons: 47,569
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/environmentalists-protestors-killed-violence-global-witness-report/

PUBLISHED JULY 13, 2017
At least 200 people were murdered last year for protecting the land, water, and wildlife in their communities, including five park rangers in Africa’s Virunga National Park, which is home to some of the world’s last remaining mountain gorillas.

These rarely prosecuted murders are being documented in more countries than ever before—24 countries this year compared to 16 in 2015. Together with criminalizing and aggressively prosecuting protestors, the result is suppression of environmentalists, a new report by the nonprofit group Global Witness argues. Global Witness is a London and Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that works on the intersection of natural resource extraction and human rights...“Our report is just the tip of the iceberg for what’s really happening,” Kyte told National Geographic. There is little data about the fate of local people trying to protect their land and water in the Middle East, Asia, eastern Europe and Africa.

Unrest in the U.S.
Criminalization and demonization of protestors is reaching new heights in the U.S., the report found. Last February at the Standing Rock Indian reservation in North Dakota protestors were attacked and injured—one woman lost her arm —by militarized police and the National Guard over construction of an oil pipeline under Lake Oahe, considered a sacred site. Some 800 people now face prosecution for protesting. (See photos of the protestors.) At the same time North Dakota politicians came close to passing a law allowing drivers to run over and kill environmental protesters without facing jail. North Carolina is about to pass a similar law. The report documents 18 states currently working on new anti-protest laws since the election of President Trump.

“While there were no murders of environmental protestors in the U.S. last year, it’s the same pattern of the state using laws to attack and silence land and water defenders,” Kyte said.


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
March Hare
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:41:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/4/2014
Posts: 279
Neurons: 1,592,368
Location: Zedelgem, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
But when you are a member of The Holy Western Church of Climate Change, facts don't matter. You hold tight to your New Testament of "Green and Sustainable", praying to your Savior, the Government for succor; listening to your apostles Al Gore, and Michael Moore; singing the hymn of the IPCC. Slightly paraphrased, I present it below:

🎵
Doom, despair, and agony on me,
Deep dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for Climate Change,
I could live a life of ease,
Doom, despair, and agony on me. 🎵




Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.