For me, there is very little doubt that the rapid rise in temperature has been due to industrialisation - the graph I posted earlier in the thread would support that, unless it is a remarkable coincidence.
I also read today an assertion that if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely, today, it would take a 1000 years for the earth to return to pre-industrial averages. Humans do not see that far into the future for altruistic reasons, at best they see their childrens' and grandchildrens' futures.
I believe the best we can do is reduce green house gas emissions to a minimum to slow the rate of increase and use that time to help those low lying areas of the globe to mitigate the effects.
We must aim also to eliminate all fossil fuel usage as quickly as we can if there is to be a future for mankind - the clock is ticking on us but the world will survive.
Therein lies the problem.
On Monday I shall be joining my GF in her rural village in North East Thailand, a very poor area and one that I frankly do not like visiting due to my severe smoke allergy.
At around 5.30pm every evening the air fills with smoke as people start cooking their meals on open fires outside. When they are not cooking, they are burning their garbage. Fire and smoke plays a major role in their lives right down to open air cremations. They are not concerned about the consequences of breathing in the smoke, or the damage that it is doing to the environment.
My point being that this is not just happening in one small village in Thailand, it is likely happening all over Asia, in fact I know that it is from my time living in Borneo.
We in the West can do all we can to try to decrease our carbon footprint, but when millions of people in other parts of the world who cannot afford an electric oven, or an electric vehicle, are taking no such action, then our efforts may well be futile.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
This song sums up how I feel every time I have this conversation.
I'll pull out the key lyrics later.
I am tired of sharing the obligation for creating society with fucking idiots I am tired of people rejecting facts in favour of their preferred dogma ..... I am tired of getting drawn into discourse to feed a profit driven algorithm I am tired of everyone's voice being equally valid in every conversation Everyone's voice is not equally valid in every conversation Sometimes people know more than you about a topic and you should just listen I am tired of people with no ideas shouting at people with solutions I am tired of people whose identity revolves around what they don't like instead of what they do like I am tired of the boring and predictable ways mass media routinely fails us I am tired of my own ways big and small that I feed into that system But mostly I am just tired Please be nice Don't be stupid Please consider what you're really doing Please when something is nice don't make it your first instinct to totally fucking ruin it
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
Using that as a reason to ignore science is the dumbest thing on earth though.
When scientists (were talking about overwhelming consensus here not one individual who may have made a mistake in experiment/ obsevation/ interpretation) have got things "wrong" it's because new information has been found that builds on what was previously known or feeds into assumptions, modelling, experiments differently and so gives better results. As a result we learn more. Both around why previous thinking was wrong and about the world.
That's the beautiful thing about science. It's constantly learning more, developing, understanding, growing. Based on evidence and information. Not standing still. To ignore science because its learnt new things is to return to the dark ages.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
The poor impoverished people are not likely to be flying anywhere.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
They certainly do mate... We have a few who do it every week.
These certainly wouldn't make it into CLs scientific members club.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
How about everyone stops flying around the world?
I've advocated on here for us all to cut down on air travel as well as greater emissions tax on air travel and frequent flyer tax under the polluter pays principle.
We ALSO need to be calling out the excess of private planes and calling in those using them to stop
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
I saw something on tv tonight that truly shocked me. It was a junk travel documentary on Channel 5, so perhaps I should have been prepared to be shocked. Anyway, there was a guy on there whose business was supplying groceries to the super rich on their super yachts in Mallorca. He stated that the whole core of his business was never saying 'no' to these spoiled brats (my words, not his) who are used to getting whatever they want, no matter the cost. He cited one occasion when he chartered a private jet from Mallorca to New York and back just to pick up a particular bunch of flowers that the yacht owner wanted on board. Absolutely ridiculous. So, whilst it's not just the wealthy that travel, it is only the wealthy who have such ridiculous journeys made on their behalf no matter what the consequences.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
How about everyone stops flying around the world?
I've advocated on here for us all to cut down on air travel as well as greater emissions tax on air travel and frequent flyer tax under the polluter pays principle.
We ALSO need to be calling out the excess of private planes and calling in those using them to stop
Hmm.
Memo to Fanny for tomorrow's "Task of the Day "...
Search for the posts made by our " Eggspert" on here tr their recent holidays/wedding guesting trips abroad .
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
How about everyone stops flying around the world?
I've advocated on here for us all to cut down on air travel as well as greater emissions tax on air travel and frequent flyer tax under the polluter pays principle.
We ALSO need to be calling out the excess of private planes and calling in those using them to stop
Hmm.
Memo to Fanny for tomorrow's "Task of the Day "...
Search for the posts made by our " Eggspert" on here tr their recent holidays/wedding guesting trips abroad .
It's a fair challenge. I love travel and have very much fallen in love with Africa which is no short flight away. But I have taken steps to reduce air travel. I do Europe by train including the ski train to the alps twice. Those bigger trips I do are years apart for financial as well as eco reasons and as per my post above I would be happy to pay additional tax on that to cover the cost of that pollution under the polluter pays principle. In other areas of my life I go a long way to cutting emissions (we barely travel by car and when we do its a car share, the environment is certainly a factor in why we aren't having kids, we're investing in solar on our house).
No ones perfect - but I do take steps, I will always find a way to visit my family in Uganda/Kenya, shouldn't affect any climate advocacy.
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
I posted this yesterday for two reasons, and just to be clear, I haven't flown in over seven years now, and would urge others to fly less. After all, we didn't fly when we couldn't, and yet somehow we managed to survive it.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
I posted this yesterday for two reasons, and just to be clear, I haven't flown in over seven years now, and would urge others to fly less. After all, we didn't fly when we couldn't, and yet somehow we managed to survive it.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
It was a fascinating read, thanks for posting. What it tells me is that nature itself has a remarkable ability to maintain the equilibrium.
That's not to say that there may well be a tipping point whereby it is no longer able to do so, or whether we have already reached that point.
But it does suggest that there is far more work needed in order to fully understand how all these various gasses and pollutants Interact with each other, and what course of action by us humans is required in order to achieve the optimal result.
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
I posted this yesterday for two reasons, and just to be clear, I haven't flown in over seven years now, and would urge others to fly less. After all, we didn't fly when we couldn't, and yet somehow we managed to survive it.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
It was a fascinating read, thanks for posting. What it tells me is that nature itself has a remarkable ability to maintain the equilibrium.
That's not to say that there may well be a tipping point whereby it is no longer able to do so, or whether we have already reached that point.
But it does suggest that there is far more work needed in order to fully understand how all these various gasses and pollutants Interact with each other, and what course of action by us humans is required in order to achieve the optimal result.
As you found that fascinating QA, the NASA website has lots more that's interesting, but I've just linked the climate change section of it.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
BTW A scientist is a person dedicated systematically to studying the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Central to their work is the recognition that science is a process of continuous refinement: scientists actively seek out what they might have got wrong, using errors or gaps in understanding as opportunities to deepen and improve their knowledge. This process of testing, questioning, and revising ensures that scientific understanding becomes progressively more accurate and reliable over time. Far from being a flaw, the willingness to identify and address mistakes is a core strength of the scientific method.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
All well and good, except I didn't say that the scientists were wrong in this particular case, I said that scientists have been known to get things wrong. My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
It isn't the poor impoverished people making the most emissions, it's the wealthy who think nothing of jumping in their private jets and flying across the world.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
Didnt think this needed spelling out but apparently it does. Private jets use disproportionately more environmental damage than a normal flight as well as those using them do far more miles.
How about everyone stops flying around the world?
How about we have world peace. Neither are remotely possible.
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
I posted this yesterday for two reasons, and just to be clear, I haven't flown in over seven years now, and would urge others to fly less. After all, we didn't fly when we couldn't, and yet somehow we managed to survive it.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
That is one of the many feedback loops that show that the response to these things is often lagged or spread over a much longer time period than it took to release the stuff, and so we actually need to be reducing much harder than a lot of predictions. At least initially, we will need to front load the reductions in emissions.
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
I posted this yesterday for two reasons, and just to be clear, I haven't flown in over seven years now, and would urge others to fly less. After all, we didn't fly when we couldn't, and yet somehow we managed to survive it.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
That is one of the many feedback loops that show that the response to these things is often lagged or spread over a much longer time period than it took to release the stuff, and so we actually need to be reducing much harder than a lot of predictions. At least initially, we will need to front load the reductions in emissions.
Yes I get that. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "more surprisingly" as I know CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a very long time, methane for a shorter time but at higher concentrations, but I wasn't expecting to see the ocean absorption explanation given.
Reducing our emissions isn't that hard if we're determined. In addition to tree planting, it's all we can do as individuals, but the necessary lifestyle changes are unpalatable to many, especially meat eaters, of whom I'm still one, but having more than halved my consumption of it. I even bought a veggie haggis yesterday. 🤣
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
But that should never be used as a reason to justify inaction. Not that I'm saying you're not acting by the way.
If I punch someone on the nose, but someone else punches him harder, it only means I haven't hurt him as much, but I'm no less guilty and should still change my behaviour, regardless of what the other offender does.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
But that should never be used as a reason to justify inaction. Not that I'm saying you're not acting by the way.
If I punch someone on the nose, but someone else punches him harder, it only means I haven't hurt him as much, but I'm no less guilty and should still change my behaviour, regardless of what the other offender does.
True. And for the record my roof was full of solar panels way back in 2004, probably way before most people on here. I also installed 3 x 15,000 Litre Rainwater tanks and lived on water from the sky for 15 years, so I cannot be accused of not trying to do my bit for the planet. I, and my family were pretty much living off grid, in a bush fire zone, and experienced many over the years. To try to portray people like me as "Climate change deniers", or of not caring about the planet is not only completely false, it's offensive.
Comments
On Monday I shall be joining my GF in her rural village in North East Thailand, a very poor area and one that I frankly do not like visiting due to my severe smoke allergy.
At around 5.30pm every evening the air fills with smoke as people start cooking their meals on open fires outside. When they are not cooking, they are burning their garbage.
Fire and smoke plays a major role in their lives right down to open air cremations.
They are not concerned about the consequences of breathing in the smoke, or the damage that it is doing to the environment.
My point being that this is not just happening in one small village in Thailand, it is likely happening all over Asia, in fact I know that it is from my time living in Borneo.
We in the West can do all we can to try to decrease our carbon footprint, but when millions of people in other parts of the world who cannot afford an electric oven, or an electric vehicle, are taking no such action, then our efforts may well be futile.
Scientists who "get things wrong" and use that to refine, develop and further their science is the very basis of science.
Lots of people "get it wrong". Many of them are able to examine the evidence and their own views and correct them.
For example, Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and once a prominent skeptic of climate change, after leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which aimed to independently evaluate climate data, concluded that global warming is real and said "humans are almost entirely the cause", after reviewing extensive data.
Kerry Emanuel, a prominent atmospheric scientist at MIT, was initially skeptical of the severity of human-driven climate impacts. His views evolved as evidence of stronger hurricanes and extreme weather linked to climate change became more robust, along with advances in climate modelling. He became an advocate for acknowledging and addressing human-driven climate change.
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, was initially doubtful about the consensus on climate change. As he reviewed the evidence, including global temperature trends and the role of CO₂, Shermer shifted his position and now accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary driver of climate change.
Ronald Bailey, science writer and author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (2002), which was skeptical of climate change. By 2005, Bailey stated, "anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up". In 2007, he acknowledged that while details like sea level rise would continue to be debated, the overall debate over humanity's contribution to global warming was over.
Gregg Easterbrook, journalist and author of A Moment on the Earth, which downplayed environmental concerns. In 2006, Easterbrook wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over", stating, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".
Bob Inglis, former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, known for his conservative views and initial skepticism about climate change. Around 2010, influenced by his son's concerns and firsthand experiences, Inglis acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and began advocating for conservative solutions to address it.
Max Boot, Conservative columnist and author, previously skeptical about the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Boot admitted, "I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too?" He now advocates for acknowledging and addressing the issue.
My opinion is simply that despite our best efforts, we will make little, if any progress, whilst the global population continues to explode with millions of poor impoverished people polluting the air and waterways.
I am tired of people rejecting facts in favour of their preferred dogma
.....
I am tired of getting drawn into discourse to feed a profit driven algorithm
I am tired of everyone's voice being equally valid in every conversation
Everyone's voice is not equally valid in every conversation
Sometimes people know more than you about a topic and you should just listen
I am tired of people with no ideas shouting at people with solutions
I am tired of people whose identity revolves around what they don't like instead of what they do like
I am tired of the boring and predictable ways mass media routinely fails us
I am tired of my own ways big and small that I feed into that system
But mostly I am just tired
Please be nice
Don't be stupid
Please consider what you're really doing
Please when something is nice don't make it your first instinct to totally fucking ruin it
When scientists (were talking about overwhelming consensus here not one individual who may have made a mistake in experiment/ obsevation/ interpretation) have got things "wrong" it's because new information has been found that builds on what was previously known or feeds into assumptions, modelling, experiments differently and so gives better results. As a result we learn more. Both around why previous thinking was wrong and about the world.
That's the beautiful thing about science. It's constantly learning more, developing, understanding, growing. Based on evidence and information. Not standing still. To ignore science because its learnt new things is to return to the dark ages.
So it's only the wealthy flying across the world?
These certainly wouldn't make it into CLs scientific members club.
The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider
We ALSO need to be calling out the excess of private planes and calling in those using them to stop
This is what happened when the planes were grounded during COVID.
Memo to Fanny for tomorrow's "Task of the Day "...
Search for the posts made by our " Eggspert" on here tr their recent holidays/wedding guesting trips abroad .
No ones perfect - but I do take steps, I will always find a way to visit my family in Uganda/Kenya, shouldn't affect any climate advocacy.
If only the threat of Climate change was taken as seriously, and acted on as immediately, as the pandemic was, then we might be seeing more evidence that we're making progress trying to combat it.
That's as an aside. The first reason why I posted it is that it's one of the few examples we have offering proof that a dramatic change in our behaviour reduced C02 emissions.
The second is that it also illustrates the uncertainty of outcomes, the unknown knowns if you like as it was known emissions would reduce, but not the effect it would have on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which was unknown, more surprisingly noted to have increased. The proffered explanation was that the oceans were not absorbing as much as usual due to the reduced pressure of CO2 at their surface, attributed to natural processes, i.e. factos beyond our control.
Now in no way am I suggesting not acting to combat climate change. My view has long been that we need to do far more and much quicker, and that what we're doing at the moment is merely tinkering, but this shows that reducing C02 emissions alone won't necessarily have the desired effect. More needs to done to extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere imo, but until the rate of reforestation exceeds deforestation, we're heading in the wrong direction there too and exacerbating the problem.
What it tells me is that nature itself has a remarkable ability to maintain the equilibrium.
That's not to say that there may well be a tipping point whereby it is no longer able to do so, or whether we have already reached that point.
But it does suggest that there is far more work needed in order to fully understand how all these various gasses and pollutants Interact with each other, and what course of action by us humans is required in order to achieve the optimal result.
Climate Change - NASA Science
Reducing our emissions isn't that hard if we're determined. In addition to tree planting, it's all we can do as individuals, but the necessary lifestyle changes are unpalatable to many, especially meat eaters, of whom I'm still one, but having more than halved my consumption of it. I even bought a veggie haggis yesterday. 🤣
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology.
Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after.
The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders.
That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
If I punch someone on the nose, but someone else punches him harder, it only means I haven't hurt him as much, but I'm no less guilty and should still change my behaviour, regardless of what the other offender does.
And for the record my roof was full of solar panels way back in 2004, probably way before most people on here. I also installed 3 x 15,000 Litre Rainwater tanks and lived on water from the sky for 15 years, so I cannot be accused of not trying to do my bit for the planet.
I, and my family were pretty much living off grid, in a bush fire zone, and experienced many over the years.
To try to portray people like me as "Climate change deniers", or of not caring about the planet is not only completely false, it's offensive.