Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[Buster15]

Majority of habitat loss is caused not by housing but by resource use (mining, agriculture, industry).

Again, you can kill 4 billion people and not make a major dent in world-wide consumption of all those things, which are as skewed to the top as carbon emissions. As your sentence in bold says, it is the resource consumption that is the problem.

Ok. We are pretty much saying the same thing aren't we.
A percentage of that agriculture etc must be required to service the needs of the larger population.
But whatever the human population, the most important thing is for it to live in a significantly more sustainable manner. And for us all to acknowledge that our planet has evolved over 4.5 billion years not just for us to use at the expense of every other living species. But to acknowledge that every other living species has the same entertainment to live on this planet as do we.

 

[Buster15]

This is from 2011:


It cites Paul Murtaugh of Oregon State University, whose research shows that:


And it draws on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which makes the first comprehensive assessment of how changes in population affect carbon dioxide emissions. It concludes:


In other words, it can make a contribution. But the other 81-84% will have to come from reducing consumption and changing technologies. The UN report concludes that "even if zero population growth were achieved, that would barely touch the climate problem".


https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ct/27/population-consumption-threat-to-planet

Totally agree.

 

[FireballXL5]

Because they care.

UK’s first new coalmine for 30 years gets go-ahead in Cumbria

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oalmine-for-30-years-gets-go-ahead-in-cumbria

 

[Adisa]

This is why emerging markets are increasingly telling the west to feck off.

 

[BD]

Is there any reason to believe that we're not fecked?

 

[Smores]

The worst part is the government spokespersons argument that its within plans 2050 reduction plans as it'll close 2049. Not sure they've grasped the point of net zero.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Listening to the news today the worst part for me was that I had to conclude that the people commenting on the news against the need for this mine's coal being used for coke in steelmaking know very little about steel making.

 

[VanDeBank]

environmental-dna-uncovers-2-million-year-old-ecosystem-Greenland warmer than present day.

This section of Greenland is now a polar desert, but the new research shows that wasn’t always the case. More than 2 million years ago, the summer and winter average minimum temperatures of 10 degrees Celsius and 17 degrees C, respectively, were more than 10 degrees C warmer than present day.

CO2 levels were close to that of pre industrial times, slightly higher maybe, but lower than they are today.

Nobody is claiming we will all cease to exist in the next 10,20,30 years etc. What a completely false base to be arguing against.

The rush to reduce emissions is entirely predicated on fear mongering. "Disaster awaits if we do nothing", "point of no return", "we're destroying the planet" etc.

You only have to look at the the estimates of atmospheric CO2 throughout earth's history to know that right now it is lower than it has damn near ever been throughout earth's history and it has been higher coinciding with lower temperatures countless of times.

The "consensus" by climate scientists on anthropogenic climate change is entirely based on the fact that the same scientists have not found another explanation for the recent temperature increases. 40 years ago they also predicted it would be 5-10 degrees warmer than it is today. Now it's getting hotter faster than they've predicted (edit2 the latter referring to more recent adjusted predictions of the 21st century)

So how much do these morons actually know about the climate, when taking into account no correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature on the geological scale and all their predictions being no better than a blindfolded chimpanzee throwing dice.

edit: Link correction + posted excerpt

 

[Massive Spanner]

environmental-dna-uncovers-2-million-year-old-ecosystem-Greenland warmer than present day.

CO2 levels were close to that of pre industrial times, slightly higher maybe, but lower than they are today.


The rush to reduce emissions is entirely predicated on fear mongering. "Disaster awaits if we do nothing", "point of no return", "we're destroying the planet" etc.

You only have to look at the the estimates of atmospheric CO2 throughout earth's history to know that right now it is lower than it has damn near ever been throughout earth's history and it has been higher coinciding with lower temperatures countless of times.

The "consensus" by climate scientists on anthropogenic climate change is entirely based on the fact that the same scientists have not found another explanation for the recent temperature increases. 40 years ago they also predicted it would be 5-10 degrees warmer than it is today. Now it's getting hotter faster than they've predicted.

So how much do these morons actually know about the climate, when taking into account no correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature on the geological scale and all their predictions being no better than a blindfolded chimpanzee throwing dice.

Are you real?

 

[BD]

Oh no

 

[Stack]

environmental-dna-uncovers-2-million-year-old-ecosystem-Greenland warmer than present day.



CO2 levels were close to that of pre industrial times, slightly higher maybe, but lower than they are today.


The rush to reduce emissions is entirely predicated on fear mongering. "Disaster awaits if we do nothing", "point of no return", "we're destroying the planet" etc.

You only have to look at the the estimates of atmospheric CO2 throughout earth's history to know that right now it is lower than it has damn near ever been throughout earth's history and it has been higher coinciding with lower temperatures countless of times.

The "consensus" by climate scientists on anthropogenic climate change is entirely based on the fact that the same scientists have not found another explanation for the recent temperature increases. 40 years ago they also predicted it would be 5-10 degrees warmer than it is today. Now it's getting hotter faster than they've predicted (edit2 the latter referring to more recent adjusted predictions of the 21st century)

So how much do these morons actually know about the climate, when taking into account no correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature on the geological scale and all their predictions being no better than a blindfolded chimpanzee throwing dice.

edit: Link correction + posted excerpt

You claimed that people were claiming "we would cease to exist in 10, 20, 30 years". Your words an yours alone. Absolute bullshit. Nobody is making that claim.

Its a bullshit argument that you have pulled out of your arse and are then trying to push it as fact to back up your own view.
You dont see the utter idiocy of doing that???

You have no credibility when you tell such ludicrous lies

 

[VanDeBank]

You claimed that people were claiming "we would cease to exist in 10, 20, 30 years". Your words an yours alone. Absolute bullshit. Nobody is making that claim.

Its a bullshit argument that you have pulled out of your arse and are then trying to push it as fact to back up your own view.
You dont see the utter idiocy of doing that???

You have no credibility when you tell such ludicrous lies

hyperbole - noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

 

[Tarrou]

hyperbole - noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

I am going to start doing this every time I get called out on some bullshit

 

[Stack]

hyperbole - noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

You complain about exaggerated statements from those scientists you disagree with but use it as a way to wiggle out of your own bullshit.
You arent worth bothering with.

 

[VanDeBank]

I am going to start doing this every time I get called out on some bullshit

Everything I wrote in the above post is correct and factual.

The thread's title is literally "code red". You can find countless examples of the fear mongering I'm referring to in this thread or the news.
It says a lot that this is what you chose to focus on, rather than the actual data.

You complain about exaggerated statements from those scientists you disagree with but use it as a way to wiggle out of your own bullshit.
You arent worth bothering with.

Tell me what exactly in my post above "bullshit"? It's all accurate.
Also I'm not complaining about "exaggerated statements by climate scientists". Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Tarrou]

Everything I wrote in the above post is correct and factual.

The thread's title is literally "code red". You can find countless examples of the fear mongering I'm referring to in this thread or the news.
It says a lot that this is what you chose to focus on, rather than the actual data.

you spouted some horseshit straw-man and then tried to pretend it was just hyperbole

do you expect me to take you seriously now or something?

 

[Massive Spanner]

This is like when England fans get excited and say they'll win a major tournament, and that it's coming home, and then when they lose, they just say they were exaggerating and didn't actually think that.

 

[VanDeBank]

you spouted some horseshit straw-man and then tried to pretend it was just hyperbole

do you expect me to take you seriously now or something?

A: You don't know what a straw-man is and B: I don't give a shit what you do.

Whatever hyperbolic claim I made that mocks "code red", "point of no return" (this is a real thing) and all other fear mongering how we're riding off a cliff in a post a month ago is completely unrelated to my post from today which is entirely accurate and you're free to fact check.

Besides my hyperbole is barely hyperbole. One of the most popular climate action groups is literally called "extinction rebellion".
Since you won't leave this alone:

The climate
disaster is here

Thunberg warns 'the house is on fire'

So explain to me how the feck me mocking the media fearmongering is related to the fact that:

• There's no causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature
• The reasoning by climate scientists is bullshit
• The geological records contradict them

See my earlier post today for the details.

This is like when England fans get excited and say they'll win a major tournament, and that it's coming home, and then when they lose, they just say they were exaggerating and didn't actually think that.

It's funny how people will dig up an older post that mocks code red bullshit and media fearmongering, when they see a post that is entirely accurate that contradicts their deeply held beliefs.

It's like they're brain can't compute they're being lied to and it's easier to mock something unrelated rather than examine whatever contradicts their views critically.

 

[Duafc]

Painful.

 

[Massive Spanner]

A: You don't know what a straw-man is and B: I don't give a shit what you do.

Whatever hyperbolic claim I made that mocks "code red", "point of no return" (this is a real thing) and all other fear mongering how we're riding off a cliff in a post a month ago is completely unrelated to my post from today which is entirely accurate and you're free to fact check.


It's funny how people will dig up an older post that mocks code red bullshit and media fearmongering, when they see a post that is entirely accurate that contradicts their deeply held beliefs.

It's like they're brain can't compute they're being lied to and it's easier to mock something unrelated rather than examine whatever contradicts their views critically.

I think people just don't to waste their time arguing with an idiot.

 

[VanDeBank]

I think people just don't to waste their time arguing with an idiot.

No one's arguing with you it seems.

 

[Tarrou]

he's tipled down

did not see that coming

 

[Rektsanwalt]

This is like when England fans get excited and say they'll win a major tournament, and that it's coming home, and then when they lose, they just say they were exaggerating and didn't actually think that.

this is a dumb cnut being a dumb cnut

so maybe you're right

 

[Eriku]

Good thing we have the oil lobby and its hired gun scientists who, after fighting the good fight against second-hand smoking’s bad reputation, are now ready to tackle the latest lunacy from the left.

Good grief…

 

[VanDeBank]

Good thing we have the oil lobby and its hired gun scientists who, after fighting the good fight against second-hand smoking’s bad reputation, are now ready to tackle the latest lunacy from the left.

Good grief…

What a load of shit.

 

[Jericholyte2]

environmental-dna-uncovers-2-million-year-old-ecosystem-Greenland warmer than present day.



CO2 levels were close to that of pre industrial times, slightly higher maybe, but lower than they are today.


The rush to reduce emissions is entirely predicated on fear mongering. "Disaster awaits if we do nothing", "point of no return", "we're destroying the planet" etc.

You only have to look at the the estimates of atmospheric CO2 throughout earth's history to know that right now it is lower than it has damn near ever been throughout earth's history and it has been higher coinciding with lower temperatures countless of times.

The "consensus" by climate scientists on anthropogenic climate change is entirely based on the fact that the same scientists have not found another explanation for the recent temperature increases. 40 years ago they also predicted it would be 5-10 degrees warmer than it is today. Now it's getting hotter faster than they've predicted (edit2 the latter referring to more recent adjusted predictions of the 21st century)

So how much do these morons actually know about the climate, when taking into account no correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature on the geological scale and all their predictions being no better than a blindfolded chimpanzee throwing dice.

edit: Link correction + posted excerpt

...but the scientists themselves reference how this had temperatures we can expect due to global warming...

“The Kap København ecosystem, which has no present-day equivalent, existed at considerably higher temperatures than we have today,” says Mikkel W. Pedersen, another study author and geologist at the Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre, in a press release. “The climate seems to have been similar to the climate we expect on our planet in the future due to global warming.”

“It is possible that genetic engineering could mimic the strategy developed by plants and trees two million years ago to survive in a climate characterized by rising temperatures and prevent the extinction of some species,” says Kurt H. Kjær, another study author and geologist at the Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre, in a press release. “This is one of the reasons this scientific advance is so significant, because it could reveal how to attempt to counteract the devastating impact of global warming.”

 

[That'sHernandez]

Everything I wrote in the above post is correct and factual.

And being entirely misrepresented because the time it took for CO2 to be higher than current levels 2 million years ago occurred over thousands, if not hundreds thousands of years. Not 1-2 centuries as it is now, which is the real issue.

We know there has previously been warmer climate and more CO2 in the atmosphere, that is why these studies are being carried out: So we can understand how nature reacts to these changes.

 

[Smores]

Why do these crackpots always talk as if they have the truth but its just not mainstream yet. All the bollocks he's spouting has been the same denial arguments for decades.

We know it was hotter in periods, colder in other periods, CO2 has fluctuated through both and we largely know why. It's like they read a chart on Reddit and think they're a scientist now.

 

[Eriku]

What a load of shit.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...stries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Exxon Mobil don’t even try deny that Climate Change is real and requires us to cut admissions anymore.

 

[VanDeBank]

And being entirely misrepresented because the time it took for CO2 to be higher than current levels 2 million years ago occurred over thousands, if not hundreds thousands of years. Not 1-2 centuries as it is now, which is the real issue.

We know there has previously been warmer climate and more CO2 in the atmosphere, that is why these studies are being carried out: So we can understand how nature reacts to these changes.

The CO2 levels were lower 2 million years when it was 10 degrees warmer in that part of Greenland. You said higher in your post (if I'm understanding you correctly)

The timescale of co2 increase really is not relevant, because we know its been colder coinciding with far higher CO2 levels.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. There is no causal relationship between co2 levels and temperature based on the geological record, which is why it's not referenced by proponents of anthropogenic climate change.

Their reasoning is literally: "we have no explanation other than the increase in co2", but that line of reasoning isn't valid in the absence of a good understanding of climate and temperature. All their predictions have been off (sea level changes, polar ice, weather, take your pick) and so much of what regulates the climate, such as the milankovitch cycles is not fully understood.

Saying "we dont know yet ie our field could have very little value in the short term" just doesn't get the attention or the funding the alarmists are getting "our field will save humanity from the greatest threat ever".

Contrast their model that hasn't made a single accurate prediction about anything, with the model of evolution that has made accurate predictions across the natural sciences for over 150 years and you'll quickly realize how little this shit has to with actual science.

Just to repeat, 30 years ago ago these clowns said it would be 5-10 degrees warmer now than it actually is because of rising co2. (Ironically, predicting no increase in temperature would have been a far more accurate prediction) and people want to do what these geniuses tell us.

 

[Andersonson]

Is there any reason to believe that we're not fecked?

We aint. Some places are fecked, but the planet isnt. Neither are our species. As always Africa will get it worst...

New studies show that the impact of 2 degrees more is worrying, but far from as bad as it is portrayed. Places like Mauritania will get even drier, but one could argue people shouldnt live there to begin with

 

[VanDeBank]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...stries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Exxon Mobil don’t even try deny that Climate Change is real and requires us to cut admissions anymore.

If you trust Exon, good for you.

I was referring to your comparison (veiled insult) of my position to tobacco lobyists..

It's like me saying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is wrong because the scientific consensus on dietary cholesterol was also wrong for 5 decades. It's unrelated and not relevant. I find it weird you're interested in so much unrelated shit surround climate change, yet refuse to look at any numbers or data.

 

[Stack]

We aint. Some places are fecked, but the planet isnt. Neither are our species. As always Africa will get it worst...

New studies show that the impact of 2 degrees more is worrying, but far from as bad as it is portrayed. Places like Mauritania will get even drier, but one could argue people shouldnt live there to begin with

WTF? one could argue people shouldnt live there to begin with???
Well I guess because its all far from as bad as portrayed we can just relax and just not worry. Hey I wont be alive in 40 years anyway so its not my problem..........
feck off.

 

[Andersonson]

WTF? one could argue people shouldnt live there to begin with???
Well I guess because its all far from as bad as portrayed we can just relax and just not worry. Hey I wont be alive in 40 years anyway so its not my problem..........
feck off.

There are places in the world that has horrible conditions for living. These people have to eventually move. Be it this century or next, its bound to happen.

Does it me we shouldn't care? No. Should we as society help them to a better place? Yes absolutely

 

[Stack]

There are places in the world that has horrible conditions for living. These people have to eventually move. Be it this century or next, its bound to happen.

Does it me we shouldn't care? No. Should we as society help them to a better place? Yes absolutely

So one of the big issues coming with respect to climate change is the whole problem of climate refugees. There will without any doubt be large numbers of people wanting to move or having to move because of problems with the climate making their historic homelands very difficult to live in.
We already see the conflict that arrises when people are moving to seek a better life or to escape oppression in many parts of the world. That sort of conflict and resistance to an influx of peoples is going to get far worse in the coming decades and century.
However people like you while in one moment are saying people shouldnt live somewhere in the first place are in the second breath minimising the issues of climate change "are not as bad as portrayed" completely missing the point that human migration is going to be a major cause of conflict and also humanitarian relief.
Its mind boggling people like you can minimise something that is very clearly beginning to happen right before our eyes and very clearly going to become a major problem in the worlds geopolitical outlook.

Issues of climate change "are not as bad as portrayed" is a belief of profound ignorance.

BTW should we care? Well I for one hope that my childrens grandchildren can live a life as effortless and enjoyable as mine as been. I dont understand how people can not care about future generations.

 

[Tarrou]

If you trust Exon, good for you.

I was referring to your comparison (veiled insult) of my position to tobacco lobyists..

It's like me saying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is wrong because the scientific consensus on dietary cholesterol was also wrong for 5 decades. It's unrelated and not relevant. I find it weird you're interested in so much unrelated shit surround climate change, yet refuse to look at any numbers or data.

they faked scientific data before because someone paid them but it’s not relevant? You’re pretty special man

 

[Eriku]

If you trust Exon, good for you.

I was referring to your comparison (veiled insult) of my position to tobacco lobyists..

It's like me saying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is wrong because the scientific consensus on dietary cholesterol was also wrong for 5 decades. It's unrelated and not relevant. I find it weird you're interested in so much unrelated shit surround climate change, yet refuse to look at any numbers or data.

You took that too personally, unless you work for the oil industry or someone lobbying for them? I’m not casting aspersions about your motivations.

I just find it really telling that companies who’ve put the brakes on climate science for so long, and who’ve used scientists whose job it is to do studies specifically to muddy the waters and who have a track record working for the tobacco industry, now aren’t even trying. If they had the science that says their industry is not significantly harmful to the climate they would be clinging to it.

I’m not a scientist, so numbers and data aren’t my forté. Use that as a stick to hit me with if you like, I just know I’ve talked to people way smarter than me studying this field specifically, and I’d have to be stupid to think I know more than them. What they tell me about how they’ve worked these things out showed me it was way more comprehensively substantiated than I imagined.

 

[nimic]

Bring back Mark Pawelek, at least he was entertaining. Good grief.

 

[nimic]

Places like Mauritania will get even drier, but one could argue people shouldnt live there to begin with

I do sort of get the point you were making, but this exact statement is nonsense. That's like saying people arguably shouldn't be living in Norway either, because the gulf stream might get disrupted and we'll all freeze to death. The populations of Norway and Mauritania are very similar as well.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I do sort of get the point you were making, but this exact statement is nonsense. That's like saying people arguably shouldn't be living in Norway either, because the gulf stream might get disrupted and we'll all freeze to death. The populations of Norway and Mauritania are very similar as well.

Actually in fairness that’s not a bad shout because then we wouldn’t have Norwegians.