"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Doctor Jimbob · 11-12-2018 4:25pm

xckjoo wrote: »

You had a typo there. Hope you don't mind if I fix it for you :pac:

Cheers. Hopefully dense won't get too upset that I've thanked your post.

Akrasia · 11-12-2018 5:42pm

xckjoo wrote: »

When did recapping become "here's the agenda I've been trying to force down peoples throats despite it being repeatedly and roundly refuted"?

Just another word to add to the list of words dense doesn't understand

dense · 11-12-2018 8:19pm

Akrasia wrote: »

When the global economy is based upon wasteful use of resources and generating pollution of our air and oceans that are ridiculously unsustainable and we already are seeing the impacts of such wasteful economic activity, then the choice is to either carry on regardless and end up with an environmental and economic collapse, or recognise that changes need to be made and plan ahead to implement them in the least disruptive way possible while still meeting the goal of creating a sustainable economic system.

And who will adjudicate upon the sustainability of a new globally sustainable economic system and whether it is sustainably meeting these new goals?

Don't say the UN.

Let it be down to each individual country to interpret their own sustainability, because after all, self regulation is no sustainable regulation.

Just because countries are woefully failing to arrest rising global emissions, that doesn't mean the UN should have a role in checking countries for sustainability. It should be sufficient for countries to "take note" of the sustainability subject, yes?

dense · 11-12-2018 8:42pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're getting very upset about people thanking posts.

Maybe if you stopped intentionally twisting every statement you don't like, people would stop thanking posts that call you out for it.

Please show an example of my having twisted anyone else's statement?
Their statement, then how you believe I have "twisted" it.
Use relevant quotes instead of randomly saying I did.

Thanks in advance.

If someone makes decidedly "odd" statements like the two I've mentioned surely they do so in the expectation and knowledge that such statements are going to be repeated and dare I say, laughed at? Not sure where you're getting anger from?

Otherwise, why make them?

dense · 12-12-2018 5:46pm

I see the Guardian is today concerning itself with the "sustainable" Neil Young's unhappiness about being sponsored by Barclaycard.

Neil Young claims victory in fight against concert sponsor Barclaycard

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/dec/12/neil-young-claims-victory-in-fight-against-concert-sponsor-barclaycard-bob-dylan-british-summer-time?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Neil is typical of the whinging hypocritical protestor against fossil fuels, being one who relied on it for years to tour around the globe and produce albums and cds, and more lately to make his own failed electronic music player device from.

He whinges about everyone else's need to do something whilst he does the opposite.

As if there wasn't enough music players and formats already available, "Sustainable" Neil, the environmental activist, decided a few years ago that the world badly needed another one.

He launched his Pono Player.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/oct/03/neil-young-pono-future-of-sound

It bombed, but being the clever chap that he is, it wasn't his own money that he had invested in his unsustainable venture in to the world of electronics.

Today's Guardian victory piece omitted to mention any of that.

Nor did it's original piece about Young's new electronic device mention anything about the green credentials of Neil's shiny new unsustainable toys for consumers.

Akrasia might confirm if the rumours are true that Young is due to give a talk about sustainability at COP24?

ohnonotgmail · 12-12-2018 5:51pm

You sound very bitter.

dense · 12-12-2018 6:37pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You sound very bitter.

You sound very sweet.

Next.

Akrasia · 12-12-2018 6:49pm

dense wrote: »

And who will adjudicate upon the sustainability of a new globally sustainable economic system and whether it is sustainably meeting these new goals?

Don't say the UN.

Let it be down to each individual country to interpret their own sustainability, because after all, self regulation is no sustainable regulation.

Just because countries are woefully failing to arrest rising global emissions, that doesn't mean the UN should have a role in checking countries for sustainability. It should be sufficient for countries to "take note" of the sustainability subject, yes?

Dense seems to think that international treaties aren't a thing

dense · 13-12-2018 8:20am

The climate concerned delegates have been addressed by Al Gore at COP24.
If you didn't realise this was a complete circus, you do now.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/12/un-chief-antonio-guterres-attempts-to-revive-flagging-climate-change-talks

dense · 13-12-2018 8:48am

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense seems to think that international treaties aren't a thing

So it could be the United Nations that will be responsible for drafting, overseeing the implementation of, and adjudicating upon the sustainability of your new, recommended, global sustainability solution, uniting nations under an international unprecedented treaty in the race to fix the broken climate.

Akrasia · 13-12-2018 10:30am

dense wrote: »

So it could be the United Nations that will be responsible for drafting, overseeing the implementation of, and adjudicating upon the sustainability of your new, recommended, global sustainability solution, uniting nations under an international unprecedented treaty in the race to fix the broken climate.

You don't know what the United nations is. The UN is an assembly of every nation on earth. That's the best place for formulate a treaty that affects every nation and requires global cooperation

Akrasia · 13-12-2018 1:16pm

BTW Dense, the links in your signature say a lot about you.

Of the 3 links, two of them are broken, and the other doesn't include any of the text you have quoted. I think the IPCC has changed their website to a new format so you might want to fix those

When one bothers to check the veracity of the statements you have highlighted, the first is a fragment of a paragraph where you have taken the intended meaning and twisted it to mean something completely different
Here's the full statement
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
In other words, they were saying that long term climate can not be predicted with certainty, but instead we should focus on probability distribution of possible future states. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that, and it does not disprove climate science in the slightest.

2. This comes from the 3rd assessment report issued in 2001. And it is a description of the problem. All it states is that we cannot say that the warming is not natural without detailed analysis. it then goes on to give detailed analysis which supports the conclusions that the warming is not natural and is caused by humans
This quote is blatantly quote mined and completely distorts the conclusions of the authors by pretending that a description in an introduction is the conclusion of the research.
In that report there is an extensive discussion of the evidence around climate attribution for the 20th century warming and a very brief summary is that they looked at all the possible natural variables and found that they were either insufficient to explain the warming, or they were actively cooling the climate, and then they looked at the anthroprogenic elements and found that they were consistent with the observed warming.
Even 19 years ago when this report was released, the IPCC concluded that the warming was probably caused by humans. 2 decades later and the probably has been replaced with unequivocally.

3. The third quote, I can't track it down, it doesn't appear in the AR5 WG1 report and the only references on the web appear on climate denial blogs. What the IPCC do say about climate sensitivity is here:
Based on the combined evidence from observed climate change including the observed 20th century warming, climate models, feedback
analysis and paleoclimate, ECS is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

In summary. Your signature is no different to the rest of your content on here. Quote mined misrepresentations of what the real science says.

dense · 13-12-2018 3:04pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You don't know what the United nations is.

I do, and you don't like when I remind everyone that it founded and funds the IPCC.

Nor do you like it when if anyone refers to the IPCC as the UNIPCC

Akrasia wrote: »

What's with you 'skeptics' and putting 'un' before the accepted acronyms?

UNIPCC, UNWMO etc

Oh, yeah, it's because you're all crazy conspiracy theorists who think the UN is some kind of shadowy one world government.

Akrasia wrote: »

The UN is an assembly of every nation on earth. That's the best place for formulate a treaty that affects every nation and requires global cooperation.

I think we've heard that more than once from you in this thread in various shapes and forms.

What I'm trying to do is prod you along a little to outline the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing a far reaching global treaty will have on society.

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/

What are these effects and what are the changes that all aspects of society will be expected to agree to make?

There is certainly a conspiracy of silence surrounding the clearly stated unprecedented impacts that society would have to deal with if the UN gets nations to agree to a treaty to fix the broken climate, as nobody here who is in favour of having such a treaty will discuss them.

I can't understand why they want to keep people in the dark by refusing to elaborate on the unprecedented changes they want to inflict on society.

Given the urgency and unprecedented nature of the situation, a collaborative approach would be best adopted to foster engagement with society on these matters rather than continually doing your best to ignore them.

Akrasia · 13-12-2018 5:56pm

dense wrote: »

I do, and you don't like when I remind everyone that it founded and funds the IPCC.

Nor do you like it when if anyone refers to the IPCC as the UNIPCC

I think we've heard that more than once from you in this thread in various shapes and forms.

The reason I point it out is because you don't understand what the UN is. You think it's some kind of shadowey world government, when in fact, it's an assembly of world governments and some administrators.

The Security council has flaws, but other than that, it's the foremost platform for international cooperation and one of the few ways international agreements can be registered and upheld

What I'm trying to do is prod you along a little to outline the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing a far reaching global treaty will have on society.

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/

I've already said that these changes will involve transforming the energy sector and each country will decide how best to implement those changes in order to meet their international obligations that they will have agreed to as as part of global efforts to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

What are these effects and what are the changes that all aspects of society will be expected to agree to make?

There is certainly a conspiracy of silence surrounding the clearly stated unprecedented impacts that society would have to deal with if the UN gets nations to agree to a treaty to fix the broken climate, as nobody here who is in favour of having such a treaty will discuss them.

Yeah that conspiracy of silence, otherwise known as IPCC Working Group 3. Those silent conspirators who have published documents hundreds of pages long outlining what changes are necessary to transition from Carbon intensive energy systems.
You can read it here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

I can't understand why they want to keep people in the dark by refusing to elaborate on the unprecedented changes they want to inflict on society.

Given the urgency and unprecedented nature of the situation, a collaborative approach would be best adopted to foster engagement with society on these matters rather than continually doing your best to ignore them.

You're such a troll Dense. Go read the IPCC WG3 AR5 report. It has all the answers you could ever want.

You won't do that though. You'll just take isolated sentences out of context that you found on some blog somewhere

Doctor Jimbob · 13-12-2018 6:05pm

dense wrote: »

I do, and you don't like when I remind everyone that it founded and funds the IPCC.

Nor do you like it when if anyone refers to the IPCC as the UNIPCC

Your assumption: People are trying to hide the fact the big bad UN founded the IPCC.

Reality: People are pointing out it isn't called the UNIPCC.

dense · 14-12-2018 1:27am

Akrasia wrote: »

The reason I point it out is because you don't understand what the UN is. You think it's some kind of shadowey world government, when in fact, it's an assembly of world governments and some administrators.

Not at all, I am intimate with the UN and it's various agendas.
I think we need to analyse why you tend to panic when I mention the agendas.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

We need to accept that for many, a new world order automatically conjures up negative connotations, but that is just more evidence of them possessing a closed mind.

They must realise that a new world order based on the caring and sharing ideals listed in the above document, built on sustainability and to be in by 2030, is for many people something positive to look forward to.

Indeed, at this time of year when we join together we often harbour the hope that a new, caring approach to how mankind treats itself and it's host might yet happen:

And all of this happened
Because whe world is waiting
Waiting for one child
Black, white, yellow, no one knows
But a child that would grow up and turn tears to
laughter
Hate to love, war to peace
And everyone to everyone's neighbour
Misery and suffering would be forgotten forever

It's all a dream and illusion now
It must come true, sometimes soon somehow
All across the land dawns a brand new morn
This comes to pass when a child is born

Instead of negative knee jerking about a new world order as something negative being envisaged, why not embrace the phrase and use it to your advantage to promote all the positives?

That box, start thinking outside it, and don't let the groupthink box you in, it doesn't have to be a dream, the new world order doesnt have to be unattainable.

BTW, had a look at that UNIPCC link you posted, it's a bit ambiguous in that it doesn't go into any detail about the impacts of the unprecedented changes that all aspects of society will have to endure.

dense · 14-12-2018 1:57am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your assumption: People are trying to hide the fact the big bad UN founded the IPCC.

Reality: People are pointing out it isn't called the UNIPCC.

Aw JimBob, ease up a little, it's just for clarity, you don't have to go all Keith Barry trying to read my mind and the minds of others over something so benign.

Reality is that some of the good people I give talks to dont know anything about the IPCC, or think that the IPCC is these guys: www.ipcc.ie

This is why it's a wonderful thing to call the UN's version of the IPCC the UNIPCC.

Akrasia · 14-12-2018 10:16am

dense wrote: »

Not at all, I am intimate with the UN and it's various agendas.
I think we need to analyse why you tend to panic when I mention the agendas.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

We need to accept that for many, a new world order automatically conjures up negative connotations, but that is just more evidence of them possessing a closed mind.

They must realise that a new world order based on the caring and sharing ideals listed in the above document, built on sustainability and to be in by 2030, is for many people something positive to look forward to.

Indeed, at this time of year when we join together we often harbour the hope that a new, caring approach to how mankind treats itself and it's host might yet happen:
Instead of negative knee jerking about a new world order as something negative being envisaged, why not embrace the phrase and use it to your advantage to promote all the positives?

That box, start thinking outside it, and don't let the groupthink box you in, it doesn't have to be a dream, the new world order doesnt have to be unattainable.

BTW, had a look at that UNIPCC link you posted, it's a bit ambiguous in that it doesn't go into any detail about the impacts of the unprecedented changes that all aspects of society will have to endure.

The dunning kruger effect. Someone who is too ignorant to know how wrong they are are usually over confident in their own analysis.

You are telling me that the wg3 report is ambiguous?

I very sincerely doubt you have actually read it, and if you have, you certain don't understand all of it.

dense · 14-12-2018 5:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You are telling me that the wg3 report is ambiguous?

I very sincerely doubt you have actually read it, and if you have, you certain don't understand all of it.

The impacts on society resulting from implementing rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society that it advises of in its Summary for Policymakers are not detailed.

It is misleading to claim that they have been.

Akrasia · 14-12-2018 9:49pm

dense wrote: »

The impacts on society resulting from implementing rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society that it advises of in its Summary for Policymakers are not detailed.

It is misleading to claim that they have been.

Read the full report then if the summary isn't detailed enough for you.

Jesus, it's like talking to a child

dense · 14-12-2018 10:04pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Read the full report then if the summary isn't detailed enough for you.

Jesus, it's like talking to a child

I said there's no detail about whats mentioned in the SPM in the report.

Quit the trolling or post a link from the report about what you think you're talking about.

It needs to go into detail about the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

Akrasia · 14-12-2018 10:41pm

dense wrote: »

I said there's no detail about whats mentioned in the SPM in the report.

Quit the trolling or post a link from the report about what you think you're talking about.

It needs to go into detail about the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

You're calling me a troll? You're the one who complains about a summary not being detailed and then not reading the 1435 page report where the actual detail is

dense · 14-12-2018 11:17pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You're calling me a troll?

Yes.

Akrasia wrote: »

You're the one who complains about a summary not being detailed and then not reading the 1435 page report where the actual detail is

You are purposely pretending to misunderstand what I said because I did not complain about a summary not being detailed. I said the report does not go into detail about the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

If, as you claim, details of these impacts are contained in the report, you'll have no trouble linking to them.

Akrasia · 15-12-2018 10:53am

The entire report is the detailed analysis of the changes required to avert climate change. It is extremely detailed. You can't find all the information you want in a summary because it's complex and every individual action has different consequences.

I am not twisting your words. You are literally complaining that a summary is too vague, and the accompanying detailed report is too detailed.

I can't link to a single place in a 1435 page report that gives all the detail because it took the report writers 1435 pages to properly address the impacts and mitigation of climate change.

Here are the chapter headings. Go and do some homework dense. It's an insult to your own intelligence for you to come on here and complain that there isn't enough detail and then refuse to educate yourself on what the report actually says.

If you're short on time, you can skip the dedications and forward sections and the index and appendices, that brings the report down to about 1200 pages.

Chapter 1 Introductory Chapter 111
Chapter 2 Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies 151
Chapter 3 Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods 207
Chapter 4 Sustainable Development and Equity 283
Chapter 5 Drivers, Trends and Mitigation 351
Chapter 6 Assessing Transformation Pathways 413
Chapter 7 Energy Systems 511
Chapter 8 Transport 599
Chapter 9 Buildings 671
Chapter 10 Industry 739
Chapter 11 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) 811
Chapter 12 Human Settlements, Infrastructure, and Spatial Planning 923
Chapter 13 International Cooperation: Agreements & Instruments 1001
Chapter 14 Regional Development and Cooperation 1083
Chapter 15 National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions 1141
Chapter 16 Cross-cutting Investment and Finance Issues 1207

dense · 15-12-2018 12:03pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I am not twisting your words. You are literally complaining that a summary is too vague, and the accompanying detailed report is too detailed.

I said neither.

You made the claim that the report details the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

It doesn't.

And you have yet again been caught out making things up.

Akrasia wrote: »

I can't link to a single place in a 1435 page report that gives all the detail because it took the report writers 1435 pages to properly address the impacts and mitigation of climate change.

Because, you aren't able to.
Because, the writers made it too difficult for you.

That, Akrasia, is the best excuse I've read here in a long time. It's inventive, I'll grant you that!

BTW you really could do with looking up what "literally" means when you get a spare minute.

Mr. CooL ICE · 15-12-2018 1:34pm

dense wrote: »

Quit the trolling

Mod: Ease off on the accusations there. If you think somebody is trolling, report the post and move on.

Akrasia · 15-12-2018 4:57pm

dense wrote: »

I said neither.

You made the claim that the report details the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

It doesn't.

And you have yet again been caught out making things up.

Because, you aren't able to.
Because, the writers made it too difficult for you.

That, Akrasia, is the best excuse I've read here in a long time. It's inventive, I'll grant you that!

BTW you really could do with looking up what "literally" means when you get a spare minute.

I know perfectly well what literally means. The words 'not detailed' and 'vague' mean the same thing. You glanced over the Summary of the report and found that their discussion of impacts was not detailed and when you are told that the detail is in the full report, you refuse to read it because it's too detailed for you and are insisting that i 'link' to the exact section that talks about 'the unprecedented changes to all aspects of society" when there isn't a section of a report, there is a 1435 page report that deals with the impacts of acting or not acting on climate change.

What you've done as the same as saying 'The Iliad' isn't actually an epic work of poetry because you've read the sleeve notes on the back of the paperback edition and don't think they're actually that long. And when you're told to read the whole book, you refuse and demand to be given a 'link' to the part of the book that's epic.

dense · 15-12-2018 7:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

What you've done as the same as saying 'The Iliad' isn't actually an epic work of poetry because you've read the sleeve notes on the back of the paperback edition and don't think they're actually that long. And when you're told to read the whole book, you refuse and demand to be given a 'link' to the part of the book that's epic.

Theres been a lot of stuff in thread, but trying to compare the UNIPCC report to the Iliad on the basis that both are epic really does take the biscuit.

Let's just accept that you can't link to what you say the report details about how society will have to deal not only with the impacts of climate change, but also the impacts upon society of the measures required of it to try to prevent climate change, and we can leave it at that.

But once again we are left to consider how Ireland or indeed France's society and economy will react and function if rapid energy rationing via effective and corrective carbon taxation instruments wrought by some global treaty is successful.

That's the part no one pushing that agenda here wants to talk about.

dense · 16-12-2018 1:13am

The hopes of a fast-fix global treaty for a new world order for the better have hit a brick wall at COP24.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop24-climate-change-deal-poland-emissions-global-warming-katowice-paris-agreement-a8685411.html

The Independent is reporting on a decision by self styled arbiters of morality, Greenpeace, to say it is "morally unnaceptable" that governments have let people down again as they ignored the science and the plight of the vulnerable.

"Recognising the urgency of raised ambition and adopting a set of rules for climate action is not nearly enough when whole nations face extinction."

Ms Morgan added: "Without immediate action, even the strongest rules will not get us anywhere. People expected action and that is what governments did not deliver. This is morally unacceptable."

The arbiters of morality have spoken, and the concluding logic would indicate that they believe the immoral will be cast down on the last day.

If there had been an unprecedented global treaty, presumably Greenpeace and the others sitting in judgement would have bestowed the gift of eternal life upon the previously immoral heathen for rectifying their ways.

Perhaps that's a theme they could use next time, dangling the gift of eternal life before those they deem to be moral. I must get in touch and suggest it.

Its all a bit cultish and medieval though, like dancing against climate change.

cop24-poland.jpg?w968h681

In other news the past president of the Maldives is quoted as saying “Climate change is not something in our future. It’s happening to us now,” said Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives and chief of the island nation’s negotiating team here. “We will not survive if business goes as usual.”

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12/14/climate-talks-appear-to-fall-short/

This is more of them blaming everyone else for their problems, as the current president is now doing by blaming China for "looting" the country's finances.

“The state coffers have lost several billions of rufiyaa [the local currency] due to embezzlement and corruption conducted at different levels of the government,” Solih said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/maldives-new-president-warns-treasury-looted-during-china-led-boom

This on the back of it not sinking leading it to switching tack on it's commitment to renewable energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/03/maldives-plan-to-embrace-mass-tourism-sparks-criticism-and-outrage

This week the Maldives, under new president Abdulla Yameen, apparently changed environmental tack, saying that mass tourism and mega-developments rather than solar power and carbon neutrality would enable it to adapt itself to climate change and give its young population hope for the future.

It's a bit rich to be listening to them whining at COP24 with their reputation;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Maldives

dense · 16-12-2018 5:08am

If I adjust the data you'll all feel warmer, I promise.

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Comments