Jump to content

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, feb1991blizzard said:

We could but we would have to go back to horse and cart, and in fact I think some of these people secretly want that to happen but haven't the balls to say it.

Hello, its the old 'you want to send us back to the stone age' jibe rewritten just for this thread!

No.I.for.one.do.not. But, I'll happily consume less if it helps keep the planet clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help? But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more ev

The IPBES Global Assessment on biodiversity was released yesterday at https://www.ipbes.net/ and makes grim reading. It lists climate change as an increasing factor in the state of life on our planet.

It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, s

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Rambo said:

Governments never lie do they?? Weapons of mass destruction.......yeh, they were completely truthful about that haha.....why is it people give complete blind trust in governments without questioning anything?

I dont know much about the NIPCC, but I do know that the IPCC doesnt have the best track record of "truthful" data, and accreditations. Does that mean they're wrong? No, of course not....but does that mean we should put complete trust in them...also NO!

Well done for not being offensive to those who dont share your opinion......oh, you couldnt manage it either......never mind. Its so similar to the left vs right, its quite funny really!

As I already explained and you once again ignored, government officials don't create the reports, the scientists do. It's an expert review of the existing body of climate science, not original research. Those scientists involved are experts and the only people on the planet qualified to produce such a report.
In multiple reports of thousands of pages each, there has been a couple of mistakes. Expected really. But it's still less gaffs than can be found in a single chapter of an NIPCC fake report.

Look, if someone denies the reality of the biggest driver of climate change - they are a climate change denier, or at the very least an anthropogenic climate change denier.
If they think the NIPCC is a scientific report, they are very much gullible.
If they think the NIPCC report is scientific and trustworthy and the IPCC report is political and not to be trusted - they are both hypocrites and detached from the reality of the reports.
If they repeatedly push conspiracy theories, anti-science and anti-scientist positions, dismiss inconvenient evidence and lie - only then to accuse others of being offensive and rude, well, that one is called projecting!

But I agree with you, the left vs right element here is quite stark. Suppose it's the same anti-expert mindset, gullibility and dismissal of inconvenient reports and experts at play in this thread that worked to kick the UK out of the EU. And much of that from well oiled propaganda machines - in the case of climate change it's the fossil fuel industry propagandists that honed their skills convincing people that smoking didn't cause cancer and CFCs didn't increase the ozone hole. In fact, many of the anti-climate science people and groups are the same ones that worked for tobacco companies and other damaging industries! Yet some people think they're more reliable than scientists?

Luckily this is a relatively free country, and people are free to choose how they form their own opinions and then present them to the public. But that does not absolve one from having errors in their opinions pointed out, or from hearing alternative opinions, evidence and facts - as much as they consider those things offensive.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Made me smile yesterday at the irony of the BBC reporting on this issue: Main headline IPCC report act now to prevent temps going beyond 1.5C . Next headline Brexit, Japan leader has offered PM a deal with the Pacific trading zone. What are we doing to this planet, when Government/corporations continually look for a cheaper source to make a product.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all the experts agree on the IPCC  findings and don’t give me that big oil malarkey as science is ever evolving and never rests on its laurels. The only thing of any certainty is that we’ve warmed and man has caused some of this the rest is speculative at best.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the current state of the natural cycles - solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles et. al. - we should now be firmly within a cooling phase - so the obvious question is: why aren't we cooling? As one alternative scapegoat after another falls by the wayside, anthropogenic GHGs loom ever larger, as the likely culprit...I guess that's why the pro-smoking lobby has turned its attention (not to mention so much time and money) toward the evading 'problem'...?

So what are the scientific foundations upon which denier science is based? Where is this body of work that 'proves' that man-made CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, such as natural weather/solar cycles.

 

You just can't ignore the fact the planet has warmed & cooled before, and that may well be what's happening now, aided in some way by human activity.

As for not cooling down, I think we need to give it a few years before we start to see a cooling, after all a decade or so is a blink of any eye when stepping back and looking at warming/ cooling periods

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one's denying the fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past, so have the relative positions of entire continents, as any of us who've studied paeleoclimates will readily testify. But those changes occurred over periods of millions/billions of years and not over mere decades or centuries...Milankovitch cycles operate over periods spanning hundreds-of-millennia.

According to the Climate Corbynista, we're are already cooling; to those who're not quite that extreme, we will start cooling soon...Since at least as far back as 2002, cooling has been progged to commence in 'about three-years' time...So far - nothing!

Plate tectonics will not be coming to the rescue, any time soon, either I'm afraid. And neither will as-yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes. So the search for the 'missing' cause (of current warming) is becoming evermore desperate with time, IMO?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear , oh dear , oh dear.

Before we even get to see the report it has been ripped to shreds by the Govt.'s not wishing to abandon their high carbon economies and , of course, it is way out of date by the time it hits the presses.

If the report is saying it's bad you had better believe it is even worse than that!

This is the expurgated version of what the scientist tried to present many moons ago.

If you really want to know 'where we are' in our concerns then look at the papers coming out now!

From reading this thread I cannot believe all those years have past since the last one! nothing has changed in terms of climate change denial which has me believing that there is not a chance in Hell of us acting in line with the scientists advice.

The thing is both climate inertia and the worst of the Asian dimming is now past and we will find ourselves on an accelerating curve of events and impacts.

We were told years ago that 1.5c above pre industrial costs us the northern permafrosts ( before we knew how important the northern soils were with regard to GHG emissions in a warming world) and we already saw 1.5c above preindustrial hit in the Feb of the last Nino. How long did it take for the peak temp from the 98' Nino to become the global 'average'? That was under the worst impacts of the Asian dimming by the way so this time it will occur far faster.

We are seeing yearly CO2 rises now augmented by 'natural emissions' keeping us on ,or above, a B.A.U. pathway even as we cut our outputs!

But don't worry the folk who think themselves cleva have all the answers........what do experts know anyway????

It's also funny how the folk talking bull do so and then blame the folk taking issue for having the thread shut down????

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There en-lies your problem my friend, you mention hundreds of millennia, but in the same sentence - state cooling to commence in 3yrs time 

I don't think it's possible to now when we "should or should not" cool, or indeed continue warming, when talking cycles of millennia! 

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Oh dear , oh dear , oh dear.

Before we even get to see the report it has been ripped to shreds by the Govt.'s not wishing to abandon their high carbon economies and , of course, it is way out of date by the time it hits the presses.

If the report is saying it's bad you had better believe it is even worse than that!

This is the expurgated version of what the scientist tried to present many moons ago.

If you really want to know 'where we are' in our concerns then look at the papers coming out now!

From reading this thread I cannot believe all those years have past since the last one! nothing has changed in terms of climate change denial which has me believing that there is not a chance in Hell of us acting in line with the scientists advice.

The thing is both climate inertia and the worst of the Asian dimming is now past and we will find ourselves on an accelerating curve of events and impacts.

We were told years ago that 1.5c above pre industrial costs us the northern permafrosts ( before we knew how important the northern soils were with regard to GHG emissions in a warming world) and we already saw 1.5c above preindustrial hit in the Feb of the last Nino. How long did it take for the peak temp from the 98' Nino to become the global 'average'? That was under the worst impacts of the Asian dimming by the way so this time it will occur far faster.

We are seeing yearly CO2 rises now augmented by 'natural emissions' keeping us on ,or above, a B.A.U. pathway even as we cut our outputs!

But don't worry the folk who think themselves cleva have all the answers........what do experts know anyway????

It's also funny how the folk talking bull do so and then blame the folk taking issue for having the thread shut down????

I have no answers, just a healthy dose of scepticism....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SteveB said:

There en-lies your problem my friend, you mention hundreds of millennia, but in the same sentence - state cooling to commence in 3yrs time 

I don't think it's possible to now when we "should or should not" cool, or indeed continue warming, when talking cycles of millennia! 

And there-in lies your apparent inability to read things properly, SteveB: It's the Solar-Cycles-R-Us brigade who keep claiming that cooling is about to start...Indeed, according to He-Who-Cannot-Be-Ridiculed-Due-to-Legal-Incontinence, the Earth is already cooling...Though his penchant for holding graphs upside-down (whilst blethering incoherently) did help with his exposition!

On a more sad note, many folks still believe him!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SteveB said:

I have no answers, just a healthy dose of scepticism....

I suggest you go and find some, then? I was once even more 'sceptical' than you are; education (though initially intended to bolster my position) has served only to eradicate my denial...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

I suggest you go and find some, then? I was once even more 'sceptical' than you are; education (though initially intended to bolster my position) has served only to eradicate my denial...

You are very patronising aren't you Ed, 

I find your level of superiority combined with your blind faith in science extremely irritating.

I'll not trouble you again sir! 

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you insist on calling anyone who questions the science & think there's more to it than just human input a denier.

If you read anyone's post who questions the science, I don't think anyone has denied human input.

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Why do you insist on calling anyone who questions the science & think there's more to it than just human input a denier.

If you read anyone's post who questions the science, I don't think anyone has denied human input.

When people post peer-reviewed papers offering alternative explanations then that would be questioning the science. That never happens of course because there is no question and no-one with any respect has the opposing view.

Instead we see rubbish from blogs and youtube videos by vested interests and post-truth nonsense by those who will never be convinced no matter what the evidence. Like Paul mentions above, just what would those with opposing views need to see to change their views? The answer is they never will change their views - in their mind they're right and no-one else can convince them otherwise.

With regards to the report, my view is that nothing will happen. When you consider the ignorance around today, the lack of will to do anything both politically and for the majority personally, we'll continue doing what we're doing now until its too late.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Why do you insist on calling anyone who questions the science & think there's more to it than just human input a denier.

If you read anyone's post who questions the science, I don't think anyone has denied human input.

Of course there's more to it than 'just human input' - and, as had been said umpteen-times before, only the uneducated would ever suggest otherwise - but the drivers that are natural are (unless someone can come up with any exceptions) all working towards cooling; it's the stark-staringly-obvious fact that the Earth is not cooling that makes further scientific study essential. Despite what Trump, Corbyn and their acolytes might suggest...

Why is it that so many CCDs are also denizens of either the far-right or far-left? What have the preconceived ideas of political ideology got to do with science, anyway? Is there really a place called Conspiracy Theory Central somewhere? Or is the Wizard of Oz a real person?:help:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SteveB said:

You are very patronising aren't you Ed, 

I find your level of superiority combined with your blind faith in science extremely irritating.

I'll not trouble you again sir! 

Then you know what to do then, don't you? (A few years' hard study and your education will far surpass mine.) :santa-emoji:

It's nowt to do with 'superiority'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2018 at 07:13, weirpig said:

With a rather bleak outlook being issued by leading scientists  of global proportion  will the deadline of 12 years really be feasible to keep the temperature to within 1.5c   or is it to late.  with countries such as China,USA consuming at such a high rate  is the Earth about to change for good?.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

Call me a cynic..but they have been saying this for over 30 years..we have 10 years or 15 years to save the planet..according to predictions by the UN thirty years ago.. the arctic sea ice would be gone half of new york and London would be underwater by now..the Maldives for example should have been lost for ever 15 years ago..and so far its always 10 years to save the planet..no doubt the planet is warmer..but all the prophecies of disaster that keep getting rolled out never happen..we still have summer Arctic sea ice...Half of London and New York are not underwater and the Maldives are investing billions in growing tourism

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Suppose it's the same anti-expert mindset, gullibility and dismissal of inconvenient reports and experts at play in this thread that worked to kick the UK out of the EU. And much of that from well oiled propaganda machines

I cant be bothered to reply to all the rest, because you're just trying to drag people into a slanging match, which isnt good for the forum, and I doubt I'd be able to stop once I'd started lol.

However, your EU comment made me chuckle. So (as per usual) politics has been brought in, so bare with me here. Your OPINION is that Brexit was a mistake because the,I presume idiots, voted to leave the EU. And this was down to propaganda and ignoring reports yes?? BUT, the majority of the population voted to leave. So you're saying that the majority of the country is wrong because they were lied to and were gullible to what they were being told? So an entire country made a decision based on false data and lies...hmmm, interesting...that couldnt possibly apply to anything else could it? 

So for the record, I'm not making a political point here, but thought the comparison was quite funny!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Call me a cynic..but they have been saying this for over 30 years..we have 10 years or 15 years to save the planet..according to predictions by the UN thirty years ago.. the arctic sea ice would be gone half of new york and London would be underwater by now..the Maldives for example should have been lost for ever 15 years ago..and so far its always 10 years to save the planet..no doubt the planet is warmer..but all the prophecies of disaster that keep getting rolled out never happen..we still have summer Arctic sea ice...Half of London and New York are not underwater and the Maldives are investing billions in growing tourism

But most of what you've said there is wrong. The IPCC never predicted sea ice would be gone now or that New York or London would be underwater. The Maldives are complicated (as is the nature of coral islands), but they're also investing billions in geoengineering to protect themselves. Many of these kinda of things are myths though, regurgitated and spread time and time again through the climate denier media channels - so much so that many people assume they are true. But most of the time they are completely devoid of anything resembling the truth. 

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rambo said:

I cant be bothered to reply to all the rest, because you're just trying to drag people into a slanging match, which isnt good for the forum, and I doubt I'd be able to stop once I'd started lol.

However, your EU comment made me chuckle. So (as per usual) politics has been brought in, so bare with me here. Your OPINION is that Brexit was a mistake because the,I presume idiots, voted to leave the EU. And this was down to propaganda and ignoring reports yes?? BUT, the majority of the population voted to leave. So you're saying that the majority of the country is wrong because they were lied to and were gullible to what they were being told? So an entire country made a decision based on false data and lies...hmmm, interesting...that couldnt possibly apply to anything else could it? 

So for the record, I'm not making a political point here, but thought the comparison was quite funny!!

What on Earth has climate change got to do with Brexit? And anywho, scientifically evidenced truths are a far cry from evidence-free political opinions. What is it you expect to gain from such conflation?

And, yes - you are making a political point!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

But most of what you've said there is wrong. The IPCC never predicted sea ice would be gone now or that New York or London would be underwater. The Maldives are complicated (as is the nature of coral islands), but they're also investing billions in geoengineering to protect themselves. Many of these kinda of things are myths though, regurgitated and spread time and time again through the climate denier media channels - so much so that many people assume they are true. But most of the time they are completely devoid of anything resembling the truth. 

There are plenty of news articles from sources such as the Guardian, New York Times etc even the UN stating exactly that stretching back to 1988..that we have 10 years to save the planet..and the same impending doom scenarios pop up again and again at regular intervals over the last 30 years

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...