Climate Emergency

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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.

cantersaddick said:

https://youtu.be/_XFPREpGry4?si=_hYu4YjVHyZnh5x9

This song sums up how I feel every time I have this conversation. 

I'll pull out the key lyrics later.

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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.

clb74 said:

ME14addick said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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?

clb74 said:

ME14addick said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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?

clb74 said:

cantersaddick said:

clb74 said:

ME14addick said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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?

clb74 said:

ME14addick said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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?

Fanny Fanackapan said:

cantersaddick said:

clb74 said:

cantersaddick said:

clb74 said:

ME14addick said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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 .

  

swordfish said:

swordfish said:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/emission-reductions-from-pandemic-had-unexpected-effects-on-atmosphere/

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.

queensland_addick said:

swordfish said:

swordfish said:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/emission-reductions-from-pandemic-had-unexpected-effects-on-atmosphere/

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.

cantersaddick said:

swordfish said:

swordfish said:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/emission-reductions-from-pandemic-had-unexpected-effects-on-atmosphere/

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.

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

queensland_addick said:

Bailey said:

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.

Leuth said:

The only way anyone should engage with queenie on these threads is to ask 'who funds you'. Even if nobody funds him