UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,934 Views | 509 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by smh
kal kommie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 3:29a, 7/9/24
Cal88 said:
Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?
Reply Quote
4
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 6:48a, 7/9/24
AunBear89 said:
As if mouthbreather003 understands anything.

Oski003: there are companies making lots of money due to these regulations / green companies.

But I'm happy that others are engaging with his preschool debate tactics.
He feels so grownup when he pretends to be smart.


"Thank you, conservahumper003, for providing that useless detail.

Come back when you have annual earnings comparisons between petroleum related companies and these green companies you clowns get all "butwhatabout" over?"

Oski003 then compares Tesla to Chevron.

Aunbear89 then claims Tesla is not a green company.

...

What the heck is wrong with you aunbear? Seriously? Grow up. You are so obviously wrong here and can't admit it, it is asinine.
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kal kommie • 7:08a, 7/9/24
"If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus?"

Speaking for myself here, not Cal88:

I think most climate change skeptics believe that the scientific consensus on global warming is driven by the same engine that drives the medical establishment's consensus on the benefit and acceptable risk of vaccines, MONEY.

The skeptics claim the global warming theory has generated billions of dollars, and the scientists advocating it get their beaks mighty wet in those dollars (…….. Big Pharma makes billions selling vaccines and the medical establishment that promotes them are tantamount to pharmaceutical reps driving new Porsches).

With regard to the global warming issue and those that believe money is the driver, I would very much like to see a stab taken at this calculation:

Comparison of the amount of money generated by the global warming theory vs the amount of money saved by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations (or the increased profitability from not having to do so).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1
4 edits
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kal kommie • 7:21a, 7/9/24
kal kommie said:
Cal88 said:
Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:26a, 7/9/24
Cal88 said:
kal kommie said:
Cal88 said:
Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.
Reply Quote
1
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 7:54a, 7/9/24
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Cal88 said:
kal kommie said:
Cal88 said:
Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.

So you agree on the first two points.

Third point:




US tornadoes count decreasing:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/29/no-ohio-capital-journal-climate-change-is-not-causing-weird-violent-weather/


Fire area burned in sharp decline over the last century:


Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 8:27a, 7/9/24
Cal88 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Cal88 said:
kal kommie said:
Cal88 said:
Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.

So you agree on the first two points.

No, not at all. I'm just too busy today to play bash the pinata and whack a mole with you. Besides, I've never seen you acknowledge that someone else made a good point. You just shift to your next bit of flawed analysis. What's the point in playing that game?
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:28a, 7/16/24
Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:21p, 7/20/24
Solid facts.
Reply Quote
3
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 1:10p, 7/20/24
bearister said:
Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures

That is true, and this UHI effect is also distorting climate data, as I have pointed out above. The other somewhat related problem is that large urban areas tend to experience more pronounced floods as there is less exposed earth and vegetation to absorb rainwater.
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:24p, 7/20/24




Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 4:26p, 7/20/24
Cal88 said:
bearister said:
Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures

That is true, and this UHI effect is also distorting climate data, as I have pointed out above. The other somewhat related problem is that large urban areas tend to experience more pronounced floods as there is less exposed earth and vegetation to absorb rainwater.
Even if your assumptions about climate are correct, people are living in those Urban Heat Islands and have to deal with the hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding. What do you propose we do about it? Say it's unrepresentative of the less populated rural areas and just walk away from the problem? It's bad data - just suck it up buttercups?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 4:43p, 7/20/24
No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
3
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 1:11a, 7/21/24
bearister said:
No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"

What is climate change?

Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 8:38p, 7/22/24
bearister said:
No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"

The carbon credit market is expected to exceed $13 trillion 9 years from now, so it is definitely larger.


These proceeds come mostly from the average citizen in the form of carbon taxes, or higher prices on goods and services produced with artificially high energy prices. The oligarchs who are on the monetary winning side of this brave new world project fund the governments, think tanks and useful idiots who will sell and impose this project.
Reply Quote
1
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:39p, 7/22/24
Meanwhile in China.

Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23a, 7/23/24
The Titanic was unsinkable.
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:49a, 7/23/24
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
The Titanic was unsinkable.


I had the exact same thought
We are not going back
Reply Quote
2
chazzed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:12p, 7/25/24
Sunday was world's hottest ever recorded day, data suggests:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/world-temperature-records-shattered-hottest-day-climate-crisis
Reply Quote
3
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chazzed • 12:54p, 7/25/24
yepper, and not by accident. pig oil burns kids to a crisp
muting 301 handles, turnaround is fair play
Reply Quote
6 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.