IPCC predicts climate disaster

I’ll just leave this one here given the end of the world probably rates a mention, Via The Guardian:

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”

Here’s the scary shit (also known as the Andrew Bolt apology chart):

And some real walking dead shit here:

Hope is not a simple document:

But we sure have to try.

Summary for policymakers here.

Whole caboodle here. 

Comments

      • Indeed.
        Delete, burn their book and introduce thought crime.

        Decorum violation is not equal to “disagreement violation”

      • Because astroturfers are known for “astroturfing” on plethora of subjects on only one turf (blog/forum/.etc) and not for appearing with multiple aliases only on a single narrow subject on bucketloads of turfs

      • 白痴 please stop astroturfing this site.

        Since you “speak” Mandarin:
        Wǒ wèn nǐ de nǚ’ér tā zuó wǎn shìfǒu jiào wǒ báichīote

      • Djenka, I have reviewed all your posts on this page and you have not made a single coherent, persuasive point. I’m not sure if it’s because you are a cheap Chinese astro-hire and cannot adequately express yourself, or because you know nothing about the scientific method, or both. But mate, you could spend your time more productively elsewhere.

      • R2M,

        its both mate… must be. I mean what else.

        If you understood the Mandarin which you use to throw insults and circumvent the spam bot you’d understand in my post above how I spend the time very productively.

      • Okay, so you’re Vietnamese then. So it’s true that more and more of the astroturfing is being outsourced to Vietnam, now cheaper than China?

      • See: google tells you its Vietnamese and you blindly accept it is.
        Do you consult Alexa and Siri on AGM topics?

        Google tells you agw this and that and you take whatever it says as gospel truth and a dogma.

        this is worse than I could fathom.

      • There are a lot of things worse than you could fathom. How much more moisture does the air carry with every degree C increase? Time to learn something; tired of playing games with you.

    • Hey its OK aviation and global shipping are generally not included in Sovereign CO2 targets because they don’t create emissions! ahhh mmm – oh bugger. For the thin skinned yes a bit or sarc..

    • Correct. And as it’s becoming fairly obvious to anyone with a pulse that we (the people) are pretty much helpless to do anything about it whatsoever — apart from install energy efficient lightbulbs — I say fvck it, let’s hit the pub! Better to go down with all guns blazing than go out with a whimper.

      Enjoy life and stop worrying about what you can’t control. We can’t even pressure our dumb pollies to change their Big Australia policy so what hope do we have with something as nebulous as climate change.

  1. BECCs and Geoengineering on scales required to achieve 2C before 2100 have never been done commercially and many of the IPCC reports rely on negative emission technologies to achieve temp targets. Forget about 1.5C and 2C for that matter there is no willingness now to make the decisions and far too many vested interests to ensure it does not. AR6 when fully released will be sad reading for the realist, sadly there are too many swallowing the BECCs and negative emissions propaganda as a solution. The temp targets (many) rely on not just being zero emissions but negative in the second half of the century as a result of high financial discount rates (yep economists again! Do nothing now because it will be cheaper tomorrow). Those making the decisions today will be long gone by time the climate impacts are beyond doubt of even the most rabid climate change denialist, so any climate issues will not impact on them one iota. But we must try!

    • interested party

      Regarding the geo-eng idea…….care needs to be taken to ensure the particles that are used do not affect soil pH in a negative way. It is one solution that could cause a multitude of cascading problems. ( worst case )

  2. interested party

    I would like to see some data on how much of this has been driven by industrial corruption. That includes all facets of life….on all continents. I don’t have the skills to do that kind of stuff. Anyone?
    And if you agree that corruption is likely to be a primary driver to what ever degree, can it be turned around without addressing the underlying corruption?
    I have pushed permaculture for so long it is becoming tiresome. I live that lifestyle, set an example locally, and still very few people will commit to change. The fear and debt is just too great for most to risk any change in the way they live. Locked in. So….the time to change behaviour is over ( for any meaningful change in numbers large enough to make a dent ) so…… now comes the pain.

    • I know how you feel. Pushing any kind of life change that may be less of a climatic impact is like pushing poo uphill with a pointy stick. All we can do is try to adapt. Knowing that humans are the second most adaptable species on the planet (after cockroaches), it comforts me to know that those few survivors in a couple of centuries will learn to be happy eating cockroaches… 😉

      • interested party

        Depends on the situation….line of work, family situation..kinda stuff.
        I am starting to think that a rural background is going to be far more valuable that a uni degree or two. If that turns out to be correct then the definition of ‘expensive’ could need revisiting……For me, city living is expensive beyond measurement when all factors are considered. By that I am including food quality, stress levels from ‘vibrancy’, air quality, water quality……

        Define your level of “enough” and go live it. Forget the notion of “more”….it drives the stress.

  3. It’s frightening, and while I hope for the best, regarding the neolibs/globalists …will they ever do the right thing? Our governments of all varieties, some are better than others wrt to climate, but resist the big issue of population. Consume until nothing is left is how I see it. Poison the land and the oceans is going on, yet f all is done about it. We in Oz need to stop exporting coal, but you’ll have the other coal nations filling the gap. What to do???

    • What to do? Treat it as an existential threat and go on war footing with rationing and investment in research and development at a level not seen since WWII and the space race. That’s no guarantee of success but at least we’ll be able to say we tried.

      • You wouldn’t put me in charge. Get capable people.

        The market ain’t going to work this one out. Nor are governments if they keep up the current modus operandi. It is truly an existential threat for a majority of the world’s. It needs to be treated as such.

      • It does not help that the population of Africa is doubling every 27 years.

        Denier meme #2. Blaming pop. growth in non-industrialized countries for CO2 emissions is a well known diversionary tactic.

      • Yes, I do. You’re blaming something that is not germane, while avoiding action that will affect you/your employer/your shares.

      • BS its not germane. Global warming IS a population problem. To say it is not relevant is absurd. Do you really think we can grow our population in perpetuity? Apparently yes.

      • No, I don’t. I’ve gone on record many times to promote population reduction. But it is a second order issue compared to runaway heat-trapping emissions. What is it about this you cannot understand?

      • It’s not germane to global warming, but it’s certainly germane to environmental degradation. Glad we can agree

  4. Perhaps we’ve had enough from the meteorologists and need more people working on the political science of climate change, the game theory, behavioral economics needed to get to a point we can commit to solving it. I don’t doubt there are technical solutions, but the lack of price signals, the political will, that there will be winners and losers, the “tragedy of the commons” scenario seems the likely outcome. After all, what’s in it for Joe Deplorable?

    I blame Al Gore. I suspect he was only trying to show that there could be business opportunities around averting climate change, but aroused suspicion on the other side of politics that there were entrenched self-interests trying to make a fast buck out of spreading fear and screwing them out of their own fossil fuel based profits.

  5. Only at the precipice do we change…… apparently……. The Frog will float belly up & bloated while people who gain, loudly sidetrack by dubbing it a gentle dip. I’d rather not find out in the rearview mirror.

  6. So…let’s see we have a 0.6C rise in low level atmospheric temperatures in the last 40 years. It seems at least 0.2 of that is due to ‘rigging’ the original numbers. There is a lot of cyclical change within that but applying a bit of averaging through the whole thing that’s what we get =0.6C Now if the 0.4 we know is increasing temp were all due to CO2 emissions we would have an exponential graph – we don’t. It’s a straight line with a steady gradient. Then according to this politically motivated lot from the UN (who rigged the numbers and charts in the first place and then destroyed the original data – a total NONO in the scientific world) this is suddenly going to go exponential to such a fantastic degree that everything will be destroyed by 2050.

    Further they keep quoting ‘models which are TÔTALLY useless except for a group of simple well-known relationships. The rest is close to entertainment. The Committee acknowledged that their previous predictions of catastrophic doom were way off the mark. What now makes these predictions all correct?

    Note I have no vested interest. I am deeply suspicious of a bunch of goons who have previously lied and exaggerated, for their own benefit, what is happening. I really really hate lying b…rds – whether by omission or commission – this lot are guilty of both.

    P.S. If you REALLY are serious about your beliefs in Climate Change then campaign for interest rates to be raised to 5% RAT positive. That will fix our over-consumption and save the planet from ALL SORTS of degradation. It would also be good economic sense with a long term view.

    • “we have a 0.6C rise in low level atmospheric temperatures in the last 40 years.”

      Wrong. It’s close to 0.8C and close to 0.9C if you include an extra 5 years.

      “I am deeply suspicious of a bunch of goons who have previously lied and exaggerated”

      If you want to accuse someone of lying then it really is a good idea to tell the truth yourself.

    • Further they keep quoting ‘models which are TÔTALLY useless except for a group of simple well-known relationships. The rest is close to entertainment. The Committee acknowledged that their previous predictions of catastrophic doom were way off the mark. What now makes these predictions all correct?

      What are you talking about ? Most climate change predictions are working out to be too conservative, with worst-case scenarios looking increasingly more likely.

    • You kinda do have a vested interest, because the change required to stop this is so huge and all encompassing that your whole life will probably be turned upside down. Your share portfolio will go into free fall, and your cushy plans will be for nothing. I think you are aware of this, even if it is just on a subconscious level. Hence, its ‘easier’ to pretend you know something about climate data and can ‘see’ corruption and fault. This means you don’t have to do anything or contemplate the complete upheaval of your current lifestyle. I get it, its easier.

    • due to ‘rigging’ the original numbers.

      This denier meme has been disproved so many times that only the deeply disingenuous still use it.

      • BS! The messing with original data was a fact. They just forgave themselves for it. You are obviously not a research scientist and neither am I. However I did do a short stint and a fair bit longer stint of working closely with people doing basic applied research. Serious scientists do NOT destroy original data. They hope that their work is just another stepping stone in greater understanding (unlike most on this page who think they know everything because they read The Guardian). Original data is normally expensive to collect so you don’t throw it out – hopefully others can use it.
        With regard to modelling small changes in assumptions can make massive differences in outcomes. The alteration of original data does change assumptions. That, and more imnportantly, a myriad of relationships that are poorly understood make most of the modelling close to irrelevant. The distributions so produced result in statements from morons that ‘research shows that some catastrophic mankind ending even might occur in the next twenty years’ Never mind that the result is waaaaay out on the end of the tail of the distribution and has about as much chance of happening as of me winning powerball 10 times in a row or a pack of cards being randomly shuffled and being dealt with the same sequence.

        For a decent reasoned discussion on the topic start with these blokes and follow the conversation that was had.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/

        I bet The Guardian couldn’t be bothered

    • CAUSED by “save the planet” urban planning policies. The good-faith mitigation policy would have been to price energy, infrastructure, and externalities properly, and let people work out their own most efficient coping strategy. Some people would live off-grid and work online. But this option is not allowed by the “apartment blocks and trains” central planners who have the authority to save us from ourselves.

      Smell test: the “approved” strategy creates zero-sum gains and a speculators paradise, hence the RE bubble (and the vested interests will get a bailout anyway). But “freedom to choose” within the right fiscal incentive structure, does not create the same opportunities for the zero-point-one percent and their useful-idiot hangers-on. And scratch almost any CAGW true believer, and you will find a “we know what’s best for you” Big-brother-State utopian underneath.

      • AGW is a pedo globalist mind control false flag…. Alex Jones said so….

        Whilst were at it would you be interested in some nutritional supplements – ?????

      • The good-faith mitigation policy would have been to price energy, infrastructure, and externalities properly, and let people work out their own most efficient coping strategy.

        I love the way you go from centralised command economy to free market purist in one sentence, then wrap up with an ad hominem attack on other people who want to do basically what you just proposed.

      • AGW is a pedo globalist mind control false flag…. Alex Jones said so….

        The good news is that now Kavanaugh’s been confirmed, temperatures should start dropping and we can all breath a little easier for our children. Well, unless they’re girls.

      • Kavanaugh confirms the Conservative propensity to favor ridged ideology over information – knowlage, a demand pull of epic proportions if you know what I mean smithy. Now SCOTUS is a fully stocked pond of corporatists more concerned about who will own stuff as the enviroment goes down the gurgler and and by what authority society should be administrated during this period.

      • It depends on where you go Gavin. In my area for example, structures under 40sq m need no approval in Rural zonings. I have seen numerous clever buildings which may or may not comply. Inspectors are few and far between.

      • scratch almost any CAGW true believer, and you will find a “we know what’s best for you” Big-brother-State utopian underneath

        Fixing AGW (if it’s fixable, which I’m starting to doubt), will take international government-level co-operation, despite the protestations of the Ayn Rand “Don’t Take Away Mah Freedumbs!” crowd, of which you seem to be a member

  7. I don’t believe in man made global warming. However I do believe in maintaining high property prices. I have a property by the water. If there’s even a chance my property price could be adversely impacted then I am all for carbon abatement initiatives. That’s how it needs to be sold – for the maintenance of property values!

    • I don’t believe in man made global warming

      It’s not a matter of belief.

      “Climate change is not a belief system — it is a fact. This is science,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

  8. The question is which countries will do best out of global warming? That is where to buy real estate and citizenship. My guess would be Canada and Russia – plenty of fertile land could be released there.

    • Apparently it doesn’t really work that way, during the last glacials Canada and Siberia were covered by ice sheets that ground away topsoil as they retreated, leaving unproductive soils. In the first 30cm of sea level rise we will lose the most fertile soils in the world around the worlds highly populated river deltas, with nothing much to replace it.

  9. If people are concerned about global emissions, then one practical measure would be to shut down Facebook & other social media.

    Facebook alone uses 2.4 Terawatts.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy-use-of-facebook/

    The users of smartphones & devices plus communications, server & infrastructure primarily for social median now use more energy than the aviation industry. And projected to use more than aviation & marine shipping by 2040.

    2015 “a new paper, due to be published by US researchers later this month, will forecast that information and communications technology could create up to 3.5% of global emissions by 2020 – surpassing aviation and shipping – and up to 14% 2040, around the same proportion as the US today“

    Guardian Environment Network Dec 2017.
    ‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025, Billions of internet-connected devices could produce 3.5% of global emissions within 10 years and 14% by 2040, according to new research, reports Climate Home News”

    All relatively unnecessary & non productive.

    A return to print media also grows more trees carbon capture & also proven carbon sequestration. 😊

  10. Maybe a virus with a 50% kill rate will solve both climate change and housing bubbles. Although the track record on the majority being right on significant issues leads me to believe it’s more likely an ice age takes us out down the track.

    • It isn’t about the majority being right. Even if the majority of people believed the Earth to be flat that does not cause the Earth to be flat. Science is about gaining an understanding about the natural world. In regatd to climate, it is changing at quite the clip and all evidence points to the accelerated change being caused by our pumpkin if greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    • Nah, a sustainable human population is 500M to 1B. 1B if we live carefully. Given our species’ track record to date, the lower number is more likely…

    • Knock off the bottom 56% of humanity, and you lose only 4% of scientific research output.

      This reduces emissions by 23%.

      Mandatory euthanasia at age 70 covers the rest (would allow a huge reduction in taxes/aged welfare as well).

      • Thanos? Yes, wasn’t that movie interesting, showing that the AGW threat is making its way into popular culture.

    • The Australian? Really? I sometimes get offered someone’s newspaper if I’m sitting having a cuppa at the local cafe. My usual answer is “No thanks, I’m okay for toilet paper”

      • That’s not an argument…
        Freezing cold in the Caribbean? 84degree days elsewhere. Ships temperatures logged 100km inland. And a model that’s been wrong for the last 15 years, oh and ignores that CO2 was higher in the 1400s and it was cooler.
        Global warming is a globalist scam to funnel money to 3rd world nations who can’t or won’t reform their economies.

      • That’s not the issue. A model this wrong has other problems – there’s never just one cockaroach. Freezing cold in the Caribbean? 84degree days elsewhere. Ships temperatures logged 100km inland. And a model that’s been wrong for the last 15 years, oh and ignores that CO2 was higher in the 1400s and it was cooler.
        Global warming is a globalist scam to funnel money to 3rd world nations who can’t or won’t reform their economies.

      • Poor argument Smithy,

        How many wheels on a train need to be crooked for a train to derail?
        What if that wheel is at the front?

      • How many wheels on a train need to be crooked for a train to derail?

        No idea. How many ?

      • A model this wrong has other problems – there’s never just one cockaroach. Freezing cold in the Caribbean? 84degree days elsewhere. Ships temperatures logged 100km inland.

        Model ? This is about data – do you know what an outlier is ?

        Wrong ? When did temperatures start going down ?

      • No idea. How many ?

        Poor argument Smithy

        I gave you the answer in the second question.

        What percentage of the data do those 70 problems represent ?
        If one wheel fails on a train and it derails, what is the percentage of the wheels that failed?

      • So trains always derail if just the front wheel “falls off” ?

        Poor argument Smithy.

        Cannot answer a series of questions with a question.
        I guess this question-answer implies that you understand that 1 error (or one problem) can be one too many.
        Hence the proposition that any claim* is incorrect only because X problems are just a tiny percentage – therefore irrelevant – is a very silly proposition
        ( * whatever the original claim may be)

      • What percentage of the data do those 70 problems represent ?

        Exactly, Smithy. They represent about 0.00000001%, a rounding error, in a dataset with many millions of entries. But it’s a clever denier move, to yell “SEVENTY ERRORS! COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE!”, playing up to the audience of deplorables, ignorami, and RWNJs.

      • SEVENTY ERRORS! COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE!”

        Incorrect.
        1 error can mean unreliable.

        People were called ‘deniers’ for denying that the earth was flat.
        It is the most abused euphemism for gross insufficiency of arguments by those that use it.

      • 1 error can mean unreliable

        If you had any training in science and/or stats, you’d know that a tiny level of error does not obviate or invalidate a large dataset.

      • I guess this question-answer implies that you understand that 1 error (or one problem) can be one too many.

        Indeed it can. Never suggested otherwise.

        However, the onus of demonstrating it is lies upon the person making that claim.

        You claim the front wheel coming off (actually “crooked” in the original analogy, so a goalpost move there, but hardly the only one) the train will derail it even if the other 50 (or whatever) wheels are fine.

        I say “maybe, but I need some convincing”, and you abuse me for being sceptical (certainly some irony there).

        Right now we have someone (with a history of bogus claims and working for vested interests) saying there are ‘problems in the data [and apparently using examples which would appear fairly easily to statistically exclude] therefore it’s all wrong’. This is no different to the creationists playing god-of-the-gaps, just aligned with a different church.

        Hence the proposition that any claim* is incorrect only because X problems are just a tiny percentage – therefore irrelevant – is a very silly proposition

        Mmm. Fortunately not something I said.

      • What percentage of the data do those 70 problems represent ?

        Hence the proposition that any claim* is incorrect only because X problems are just a tiny percentage – therefore irrelevant – is a very silly proposition

        Mmm. Fortunately not something I said.

        Ok… if that’s how you read above

        However, the onus of demonstrating it is lies upon the person making that claim.

        That’s where one attacks the claim not the claimant.

        I understand the pastime experience paint on personality of others, however, that should not be detrimental evidence to claims they make (no matter how silly those claimants are)

      • That’s where one attacks the claim not the claimant.

        You mean like in my first post post questioning whether or not those 70 problems are actually relevant to the outcomes ?

        Bravo. I’m glad we agree.

        Incidentally, there’s nothing invalid about attacking the claimant when it’s relevant. Criticising his claim because he’s got bad breath is ad hominem. Criticising his claim because he’s got a history of misrepresentation of climate science is not.

      • You mean like in my first post post questioning whether or not those 70 problems are actually relevant to the outcomes ?

        No I mean like your first post where you claim that small percentile part of error/problem is irrelevant because it is small.

        70 problems, hey ?
        What percentage of the data do those 70 problems represent ?

        Criticising his claim because he’s got a history of misrepresentation of climate science is not [Ad-Hominem].
        Disappointing,
        https://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf

        Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

      • No I mean like your first post where you claim that small percentile part of error/problem is irrelevant because it is small.

        I’m struggling to see the point where I said it’s irrelevant.

        I asked a question, to acquire more information, to then make a judgement on whether or not it’s relevant.

        Disappointing,

        You need to read more of that document. I’ll leave it to you to find the relevant bits.

      • I’m struggling to see the point where I said it’s irrelevant.
        Perhaps because the pastime experience is forcing a tunnel vision

      • Perhaps because the pastime experience is forcing a tunnel vision

        Mmmm. Yummy, yummy word salad.

      • Mmmm. Yummy, yummy word salad.

        Is this an attempt to ridicule?

        Sorry, you do not struck me as the other cognitively challenged multiple personality here.
        But I will reword for you

        Perhaps because the pastime experience is forcing a tunnel vision
        Perhaps because the personal bias towards a person based on the previous verbal exchange is forcing you to focus only on one thing, like what motivates a person, rather than what was being said.

      • Is this an attempt to ridicule?

        Just some levity for the peanut gallery.

        But I will reword for you

        Most charitable.

        Maybe you could do the same to elaborate on how asking what proportion of the data the supposed “70 problems” represents is equivalent to asserting those “70 problems” are irrelevant.

        Perhaps because the personal bias towards a person based on the previous verbal exchange is forcing you to focus only on one thing, like what motivates a person, rather than what was being said.

        You must be reading a different discussion to me. Motivations have been mentioned only in (relevant, it’s important to point out) support of the original question about how important the supposed “70 problems” are.

      • Is this an attempt to ridicule?

        Just some levity for the peanut gallery.

        Oh, thanks,
        I know, from reading your previous comments that you resort to this when you’ve run out of “arguments” – attempt to divert the conversation.
        ____________
        Maybe you could do the same to elaborate on how asking what proportion of the data the supposed “70 problems” represents is equivalent to asserting those “70 problems” are irrelevant.

        70 problems, hey ?
        What percentage of the data do those 70 problems represent ?

        Sure, just asking…
        And then you go on dozen or so of posts attacking the notion that just 1 problem could be relevant?
        ____________________

        You must be reading a different discussion to me. Motivations have been mentioned only in (relevant, it’s important to point out) support of the original question about how important the supposed “70 problems” are.

        Criticising his claim because he’s got a history of misrepresentation of climate science is not [Ad-Hominem].

        sure… I must be reading the different discussion

        Done mate, you’re now recycling and reformatting what was addressed above.

      • I know, from reading your previous comments that you resort to this when you’ve run out of “arguments” – attempt to divert the conversation.

        No, when the point’s been made and nothing further needs discussion.

        Sure, just asking…
        And then you go on dozen or so of posts attacking the notion that just 1 problem could be relevant?

        Uh, no. You failed to explain how one problem was relevant in this case. Your claim, your onus.

        sure… I must be reading the different discussion

        Correct.

        ALso, it’s not ad-hominem, which if you’d bothered to read all of the Wikipedia page you copy-pasta’d, or the document you linked to, you would realise.

      • Uh, no. You failed to explain how one problem was relevant in this case. Your claim, your onus.

        My response was purely addressing your clearly implied claim that 70 problems are insignificant or irrelevant. Therefore it is your anus.
        Now you said that you simply asked and that nothing is implied (yeah… right…) but to use your analogy and to use your words – “you’re thinking it hard” champ , it is clear what you implied.
        See below

      • My response was purely addressing your clearly implied claim that 70 problems are insignificant or irrelevant. Therefore it is your anus.
        Now you said that you simply asked and that nothing is implied (yeah… right…) but to use your analogy and to use your words – “you’re thinking it hard” champ , it is clear what you implied.
        See below

        My implied point that 70 problems in the relevant data set are insignificant, is a long, long way from your inferred point that a single wrong data point can never make a difference.

        You have spent dozens of posts worth of fallacies on the latter, while studiously ignoring the former.

        But that’s an established pattern of behaviour, since underlying positioning throughout this entire discussion that because people are quick to dismiss regurgitation of the same rhetoric that has been refuted dozens of times, they would be similarly quick to dismiss anything that might challenge the existing science.

        I guess that’s what happens when you’re focused on the claimant and not the claim.

      • My implied point that 70 problems in the relevant data set are insignificant, is a long, long way from your inferred point that a single wrong data point can never make a difference.

        LOL, just earlier you claimed that you did not imply insignificance of the number of problems only to indirectly admit just now.
        Hence my response

        But the rest is bat sheet krazy man,
        that’s what the lnbreed said, not me (bold text).

        Lemme see what I said above:
        1. Hence the proposition that any claim* is incorrect only because X number of problems are just a tiny percentage – therefore irrelevant – is a very silly proposition
        2. “SEVENTY ERRORS! COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE!” –> Incorrect. 1 (one) error can mean unreliable.

        and elsewhere on this blog entry (with a bit broader/different context)
        3. Errors have propensity to affect from nothing up to affect everything.

        You have spent dozens of posts worth of fallacies on the latter, while studiously ignoring the former.
        Remember, I never said “the later” (it was someone else in your camp) and I did address “the former” in my quote nr1. above.

      • But the rest is bat sheet krazy man,
        that’s what the lnbreed said, not me (bold text).

        Mmm, ’tis true, looks like I got my words mixed up. Ah, well, I blame the wine and the hours of training videos that have been melting my brain all day. Sh!t happens.

        1. Hence the proposition that any claim* is incorrect only because X number of problems are just a tiny percentage – therefore irrelevant – is a very silly proposition

        Indeed. However, as noted above, nobody actually said that. You made it up.

        2. “SEVENTY ERRORS! COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE!” –> Incorrect. 1 (one) error can mean unreliable.

        Actually the statement can be correct or incorrect, depending. Seventy errors may be irrelevant, or they may be critical. Maclean is suggesting the seventy errors are critical. Personally I reckon they’re irrelevant, given the examples on offer.

        It’s important to point out, however, that nobody is disputing that one error *can* mean unreliable in particular situations. The implication is that in this one, it doesn’t.

        3. Errors have propensity to affect from nothing up to affect everything.

        Again, something nobody has actually disagreed with.

        You are getting very agitated about stuff people haven’t actually said.

        Remember, I never said “the later” (it was someone else in your camp) and I did address “the former” in my quote nr1. above.

        What I actually meant to say is that you have spent dozens of points supporting the claim that these small errors are significant.

    • When you are talking about cumulative results of tiny increments, and a claimed “tipping point”, small percentages matter. When claims are being made to omniscience, one should be shocked by the discovery of obvious incompetence.

    • I think you’re on the wrong website. You probably meant to type in ‘Macquarie Radio’ but your short sightedness combined with your stupidity landed you here.

    • Went there for a few years in the 80’s but decided that dying of cold or boredom wasn’t for me. I hear the Chinese are on the verge of buying it now.

    • Tassy? There will be no hidey-holes from this monster. Tassy is slated for some nasty climate changes too, just check the maps of future climate.

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      Yes, it is unfortunate that this problem seems to attract the wool heads and the feeble minded. If you want to make progress you need some psychopaths. Sadly the psychopaths are all employed in the pursuit of endless growth.

      At least we have Tim Flannery who is leading the charge on statistical virtue signalling – “AUSTRALIA’S EMISSIONS PER CAPITA REMAIN AMONG THE HIGHEST ON THE PLANET.” If we can get that per capita number down, it will cheer us all up no end as we tick over past 100m population. Even though Australia will have joined the ranks of the other overpopulated hellholes, we will be proud that we weren’t the worst per capita offender. Unpowered slums and cold water ghettos – whatever it takes to get that per capita number down. Thanks Tim.

      • Australia would be “overpopulated” with 100 million people? Is Western Europe overpopulated? I recommend the Lincoln Institute’s “Global Atlas of Land Consumption” as a resource strongly supportive of rational discussion.

      • “If you want to make progress you need some psychopaths.”

        Would be interesting to see the evidence to support that DM, especially considering the broad brush.

      • Thanks Tim.

        Typical DM, attacking the messenger. Way to go, at least you’ve identified the true villain (Flannery) in this whole global warming business. [/sarc]

      • “Is Western Europe overpopulated?”

        Western Europe isn’t the worlds biggest desert island with barely enough rainfall for its current inhabitants let alone 100 million.

    • This post sure has managed to bring out the worst in the MB readership! Great work.

      Not really, all you are seeing is a certain section of the membership fulfilling their employer’s brief. Astroturfing is a job.

      • Not really, all you are seeing is a certain section of the membership fulfilling their employer’s brief. Astroturfing is a job.

        Concur,
        it is an utter irony.

      • Interesting to see how much money the big companies are willing to throw at denying climate change.

        There are members I’ve NEVER seen comment before suddenly popping up in fierce numbers.

      • I’m glad I’m not alone in finding this, Bubbley.

        Some of them can’t even understand the irony of them shouting that others are astroturfers.

  11. The big question, like all environmental problems, is how will the solution be rolled out. It’s looking very much like the big multinationals get a free pass, while the responsibility will be pushed onto small business and households. This will in turn create a backlash that will feed denial and avoidance. The elites have to own this problem, not use it as another way to rentseek.

  12. Heres something for the climate change fanboys to ponder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
    A natural variation of 120m in sea level and a 10+ degree difference in temperature with no man made climate change. One of the problems with climate science and AGW is that it is simply lost in the noise of natural variation on longer than human time scales. The reality is that many civilisations of the past have been lost to changing climate and ours will probably follow at some point whether we cause it by co2 emmisions or not.

    • It’s easy to be lost in the scales.
      It kinda gets you to a spot where you end up claiming that every road is curved because the Earth is not flat.
      Which is not false by itself.

    • So because climate change hasn’t been anthropogenic in the past, it can’t be anthropogenic in the present ?

      • That’s not what he wrote.
        He wrote that natural changes are so large they dwarf the human induced and renders them to noise level…but used incomparable scales

        edit:

      • That’s not what he wrote.

        Indeed. But he was thinking it really hard:

        A natural variation of 120m in sea level and a 10+ degree difference in temperature with no man made climate change.

        He wrote that natural changes are so large they dwarf the human induced and renders them to noise level…but used incomparable scales

        FFS.

        Nobody disputes climate changes hugely across geologic time scales. Just like nobody disputes the planet will still be here even after puny humans are gone. The *reason* AGW is a problem is because we are causing changes that normally operate on geological time scales, occur on human time scales.

        Personally, as a human, I care about human time scales more than geological time scales. I suppose if you are a rock, you might not care about human time scales.

      • That’s not what he wrote.
        Indeed. But he was thinking it really hard:

        I do not doubt that a part of a sentence taken outside of the context is making your blood boil.

        But I will repeat what I said above: there was no claim of absence of antropogenig GW in OP statement, only the scale and proportion of it (which is seriously flawed statement)
        In my response to you, I addressed “…it can’t be anthropogenic in the present ?” which was not stated in the OP.
        Unless you’re “thinking it hard”

      • I do not doubt that a part of a sentence taken outside of the context is making your blood boil.

        I know attention spans are getting short, but how can it be taken out of context when the context is 6 inches up the screen ?

        But I will repeat what I said above: there was no claim of absence of antropogenig GW in OP statement, only the scale and proportion of it (which is seriously flawed statement). In my response to you, I addressed “…it can’t be anthropogenic in the present ?” which was not stated in the OP.

        The giveaway is that the (supposed) point stands without adding “with no man made climate change”, which is clearly tacked on the end for the purposes of “virtue signalling”.

        Further posts by the same person have also clarified that intent.

      • Smithy,

        had enough of running in circles.

        I agree on one’s standpoint in a broad perspective but you’re “thinking it hard” and project that if one errs on many subjects therefore one must always be at fault.
        Wrong. It always has been.
        Chose as you find fit.

      • “ndeed. But he was thinking it really hard:”

        Bwahahahaaaaa!!!!!! Yep! You lot are a new more advanced type of human (self-assessed) who KNOW what others are thinking! The fact that you are superior also allows you to censor the thinking.

    • One of the problems with climate science and AGW is that it is simply lost in the noise of natural variation on longer than human time scales

      It’s not a problem. We are only interested in human time scales, not what happened before we were here. Because we cannot survive in climates that occurred before we were here … get it?

      • We are only interested in human time scales, not what happened before we were here.

        True
        ,
        because “We” is interested in agenda rather than finding the truth.

        Cannot ignore the backdrop that is created by what happened before the humans much the same as it needs the scale adjustment for comparison.

      • We are not ignoring it. It’s simply not relevant to OUR continued survival. We are not dinosaurs.

        in spite… one will claim comprehension of the science

    • The reality is that many civilisations of the past have been lost to changing climate and ours will probably follow at some point whether we cause it by co2 emmisions or not.

      Actually, there has never been a global loss of civilization due to climate, until now.

      But yes, we could be going away. Don’t have kids.

      ‘The planet is fine. The people are fucked… The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.’ (George Carlin)

    • climate change fanboys

      I suppose I am a ‘fanboy’ (read: I understand the science). But coming from a crypto fanboi who has lost his shirt, I’ll take that. Isn’t it time you conceded that you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, both in the climate and crypto spheres?

      • (read: I understand the science).

        This is in complete clash and it is opposite of the evidence posted in the past by all the aliases used.
        Unless science understanding means copy/paste what others believe.

      • See one post above this.
        or… If you had any training in science and/or stats, you’d know that a tiny level of error does not obviate or invalidate a large dataset.
        Cannot quote several years and all the aliases used.

        Yes, I am a “denier” of comprehension of the science by one specific personality using multiple aliases here.
        But this blog entry was not about any specific personality (or me).

      • So you are using my perfectly reasonable statement about error and its importance or lack of it as proof I do not understand science? I am trained at university level in stats. Are you?

        Why don’t you address the elephant in the room, namely that the BS about the errors is pushed by a well known misinformer, John McLean?
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/John_McLean_arg.htm

        https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/13/the-big-oil-backed-climate-denier-who-hoodwinked-fairfax/

      • I don’t doubt curriculum.

        Westgate bridge collapse must be is a Bermuda triangle for statisticians

        Errors have propensity to affect from nothing up to affect everything.
        Not sure how that bodes with perceptions of statisticians.

        Why don’t you address the elephant in the room, namely that the BS about the errors is pushed by a well known misinformer, John McLean?

        Because those are obvious and beyond the scope of this blog.
        OTOH, bad arguments against make contra-effect.

      • I’ll pause for an ad-hom here: you are so inarticulate that your employers are not getting their money’s worth. But I suppose Chinese astros are cheaper, after all ….

      • I’ll pause for an ad-hom here:

        Pause what?

        you are so inarticulate that your employers are not getting their money’s worth.
        I will not doubt your expertise in how to get money’s worth…

        Henceforth I will abandon this successful attempt to sidetrack the arguments

      • Re Science – you just read the popular rags that reinforce your belief. you don’t go to the science. Remember you quoted nme that the world was going out control over some rapidly rising water temperature somewhere??????? You didn’t bother with the original data and neither do all those whose interest is in degrading the lives of people they don’t like or in harnessing the rivers of money going with the whole ‘climate’ gig.
        The original data showed a relatively short term cyclical phenomena that was already rolling over – but never mind inconvenient facts! That’s way too hard.

      • :” I understand the science)”
        Oh right!!! I’m yet to see a shred of evidence of that. There IS a difference between emotive assertion and scientific enquiry!

      • I’m yet to see a shred of evidence of that.

        What part of the science would you like me to explain to you?

      • harnessing the rivers of money going with the whole ‘climate’ gig.

        LOL. The plot thickens. 99% of scientists contrive an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.

  13. The main problem is the way our economy works is fundamentally broken.

    It does not take into account your destruction of the environment and the abuse of other living creatures.
    Business wants maximum consumption while our environment needs minimal consumption.

    It’s fundamentally broken which is why it will just keep getting worse. Perhaps climate change will wipe out massive human populations but probably not before many other species are gone.

    Unless we get some fundamental business change on how an economy operates it looks like game over. It’s not only CO2 it’s pollution of our environment with chemicals which will also kills us and other creatures.

    • And as yesterday’s Nobel winner said, the solution will have to be economic. Carbon taxes, anyone? Blindingly obvious

      • Barrak “bomber” Obama is a Nobel laureate too.
        His bomb drop per capita of any nation that was under US aggression was staggering.

        If Trump was a Nobel laureate (very possible) would you quote him?

        (the whole response is about Nobel prize depreciation to meaningless and political)

      • You’re not addressing the argument.

        Indeed,
        there’s no argument in appeal to authority…
        I addressed absence of argument in that statement.
        and defeasible reasoning as a usual leverage

      • and defeasible reasoning as a usual leverage

        Say what? Google translate is not helping you

        …and no more to add.

      • The real story with the “70 errors” beatup is how astonishing it is that a fossil-fuel-funded worm like McLean could only find 70 errors in a dataset of millions, despite months of searching. This is the real headline.

      • It is pointless how long it took and what motivates one to find the errors – and it is counter-effective in the plight for the climate change arrest.
        Not sure what motivates the folks to do that.

        11.4cm on a large bridge like the Westgate Bridge is a tiny measure but it collapsed the bridge because it was a tiny little tidbit where it mattered.

      • 11.4cm on a large bridge like the Westgate Bridge is a tiny measure but it collapsed the bridge because it was a tiny little tidbit where it mattered.

        Your lack of understanding of how HadCRUT works is what’s leading you to confuse engineering a bridge with climate stats.

        Put down the keyboard and back away from the computer, for your sake and ours.

  14. bolstroodMEMBER

    ?
    What are you all on about?
    St. Scomo has spoken.
    There will be no action taken to address Climate Catastrophe,
    because Coal is to important to our economy to stop mining it.
    After all we ARE the largest coal export nation on Earth.
    and God will see the righteous are taken care of, and the prophets of the mining industry agree.
    Even Bill Shorty is short CC, long mining and coal.
    So there suck it up, Suckers.

      • The anti-coal positions are also untenable. Idiots think we can just stop exporting coal? Two things happen – we would immediately have to sell every piece of the country to China – then they’ll export the copal.
        Immediately you cut off power to a whole lot of people who don’t enjoy any sort of lifestyle of any comfort.

      • LOL! The Environment destruction minister said today the 91 top climate change scientist who wrote the report are WRONG.

        Melissa Price LNP minister is a lawyer who has worked for the mining industry. She has no science background but says 91 scientists are wrong.

        The ABC twitter comments on this article are hilarious.

  15. Forrest GumpMEMBER

    The last time CO2 atmospheric concetrations were at 300 ppm sea levels were 7m higher. We just flew past 400 ppm last year.

    There is a lot if real estate that will be going under water in the coming 50 years. The banks and insurance companies know it too. Watch this space, huge eye watering chages are on the way

    • I await the denier meme “Al Gore has a seafront house”. They always neglect to mention that Al Gore’s seaside house is not beachfront, it’s 3km from the shore and 200m above sea level. So their point is stupid, as usual.

    • I think you should read some science on the subject – preferably not of those with their noses in the trough – especially the UN

      • Forrest GumpMEMBER

        @ Flaws

        Current CO2 levels @ 405 ppm
        https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

        Refer to Dr James Hansen’s data. Plenty of data out there. Suggest you have a read of Storms of my Grandchildren
        Look at the data of David Spratt & Philip Sutton and flick through the book Climate Code Red

        Keep in mind the current (This weeks) IPCC projections are already 7 years out of date. It takes that long for the IPCC to allow the empirical data to be acknowledged, watered down to a suitable for the public viewing and released.

        Also note the IPCC exclude positive feedback loops generated by the melting of Arctic, Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets in sea level rises.

        The IPCC also ignore the associated forcings of the release of methane from the melting of the perma frost in northern Russia.

        You are right I need to do some more reading.

  16. Since you’ve all gone mental over my previous post, how about a more human time scale example.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
    Built by the ancient Egyptians around 5000 years ago. Currently sits in the middle of the desert. Built using human labour by all archaeological accounts.
    Do you think they built it with human labour in the middle of the desert? You’re retarded if you think they did.
    So clearly sometime between 5000 years ago and now there has been a very significant shift in the climate of Egypt.
    If you really want to establish when, careful study of the artwork shows that a hippo went from being accurately drawn to very abstract across time as hippos went from animals seen locally to something only heard about in stories as the climate changed.

    It is impossible to understand the last few hundred years of climate change without understanding the last few thousand, yet the climate scientists seem to be completely focused on the last 100 years. I guess because that is all they have significant data on, and it’s hard to keep doing research without some data to process. Whether that research is of any true value or not, who knows.

    • So you are unable to see the difference between a regional vegetative change brought about by overuse and global climate change? No wonder you lost your shirt in the crypto sphere.

    • What is your point ?

      You seem to be claiming a lack of understanding but are not really explaining what it is. Do you think anyone disputes that the climate has changed in some parts of the world over the last few millennia ?

    • very abstract across time as hippos went from animals seen locally to something only heard about in stories as the climate changed.

      BTW hippos live in rivers. The Nile still flows, and there are no hippos because guns.
      ” Because of its tendency to graze on the newly grown wheat, overturning boats, hurting and even killing people, the hippo was often hunted and is extinct in the lower part of the Nile today.”
      http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/bestiary/hippo.htm

    • The climate has changed in all parts of the world over the last few millennia. See vestigial rainforest in areas around Sydney for example. My point is that climate scientists fail to acknowledge this and unless they understand the causes for this, any claim that current activities are responsible for all observed climate change is ill conceived.
      I see continued insistence that climate science is right because it’s science and indisputable, when it isn’t even amenable to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. How exactly do you conduct repeatable, independent experiments on the climate?

      • The climate has changed in all parts of the world over the last few millennia.

        Yes. Nobody disputes this.

        My point is that climate scientists fail to acknowledge this […]

        Who and how ?

        I see continued insistence that climate science is right because it’s science and indisputable, when it isn’t even amenable to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. How exactly do you conduct repeatable, independent experiments on the climate?

        FMD. Can’t you guys at least come up with some new rhetoric ?

        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/

      • The climate has changed in all parts of the world over the last few millennia. See vestigial rainforest in areas around Sydney for example.

        That’s not climate change, that’s called axes and saws. OMFG you really are hurting the denier cause.

      • That’s a lovely article smithy, but it doesn’t address the fact that all the observations are taken for a single case with a multitude of independent variables besides those they are interested in, and no data for any historical climate change under other conditions. All their observations are for the current circumstance.
        I submitted a list of other ancient cities now located in deserts for R2M’s reading pleasure but the spambot ate it, but feel free to peruse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_sites_by_continent_and_age and find em for yourself.

        Heres a question for you. Has the climate changed this quickly in the past without human activity contributing?
        Given the lack of new deserts appearing currently, and the fact they have in the past, my gut says yes it has.

      • Heres a question for you. Has the climate changed this quickly in the past without human activity contributing?

        Why do you keep writing this (and variants thereof) as if that somehow means humans cannot be responsible this time ?

      • I never said humans weren’t responsible, you put those words in my mouth.
        “The reality is that many civilisations of the past have been lost to changing climate and ours will probably follow at some point whether we cause it by co2 emmisions or not.”
        Claiming that by stopping co2 emmisions we can save ourselves from climate change is almost as absurd as claiming that climate change isn’t happening at all. The cause of climate change on the other hand is something that is far less concrete. All your beloved observations only reveal that the climate is changing or not. To make any truly scientifically valid observations on the causes would require independently varying all the possible causes and observing the effect they have. When they do the experiments on that get back to me.

      • I never said humans weren’t responsible, you put those words in my mouth.

        Well, here’s your opportunity to clear up what you actually mean when you write it.

        Claiming that by stopping co2 emmisions we can save ourselves from climate change is almost as absurd as claiming that climate change isn’t happening at all.

        Sure, if you (comically) disingenuously interpret “climate change” in that context to mean all climate change, rather than the human-caused component.

        To make any truly scientifically valid observations on the causes would require independently varying all the possible causes and observing the effect they have. When they do the experiments on that get back to me.

        Repeating it doesn’t make it true.

      • OK smithy,
        how do you determine the human caused component if you don’t understand the natural part?
        I find it really hard to believe that global climate has been warming for thousands of years, but then mostly stopped just in time for the industrial revolution to start warming the globe with co2.

      • how do you determine the human caused component if you don’t understand the natural part?

        What makes you think the natural component is not understood ?

        I find it really hard to believe that global climate has been warming for thousands of years, but then mostly stopped just in time for the industrial revolution to start warming the globe with co2.

        You mean this ?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

      • A direct quote from your example.
        “Scientists have tentatively identified seven possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[77] fluctuations in the human population in different parts of the world causing reforestation, or deforestation; and the inherent variability of global climate.”
        So yes, that is an example of climate change in the past not being well understood by scientists. let alone any future or current variations.

      • So multiple possibilities means they know nothing about the impacts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, despite them being an hypothesis over a century old that’s easily testable ?

        The rationale behind ‘we can’t explain everything exactly therefore we can’t explain anything at all’ invalidates basically every field of science known to man. Strange how people only seem to bring it up as a showstopper to leveraging knowledge when it comes to climate change, and not, say, medicine.

      • Medicine has it’s own issues lol. All i hear doctors talk about these days is “risk factors”.
        Risk is an insurance concept, not a medical one.
        Dr’s should be talking about causes of diseases not risk factors. The two are very different.

        And again I will ask, How can you possibly determine how much of current global warming is man caused and how much isn;t when you are unable to determine the natural warming independent of man made causes.
        The answer is you can’t with any sort of accuracy and scientists who are claiming they can are delusional or deliberately deceitful.
        There are seven possible causes including “inherent global climate instability” is simply not compatible with making predictions of any accuracy.

      • Dr’s should be talking about causes of diseases not risk factors. The two are very different.

        By the reasoning you are presenting, doctors may as well be casting bones.

        And again I will ask, How can you possibly determine how much of current global warming is man caused and how much isn;t when you are unable to determine the natural warming independent of man made causes.

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Heaps of content there explaining how and why. With links to all sorts of sciencey stuff to back it up.

        The answer is you can’t with any sort of accuracy and scientists who are claiming they can are delusional or deliberately deceitful.

        So like the way doctors can’t tell how much of making people get better is what they do and how much of it is natural because they don’t fully understand what happens ‘naturally’ ?

        There are seven possible causes including “inherent global climate instability” is simply not compatible with making predictions of any accuracy.

        Sure it is. Indeed, it’s the epitomy of science in progress.

  17. Wow, I can’t believe the level of doubt in people’s minds that the science is wrong. There is no controversial debate in the scientific community about this. It’s only a controversy among non scientists. Don’t get me wrong it is still a hypothesis, as are all scientific theories even Newton’s and Einstein’s, but has an extremely large and strong body of evidence to support it. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories that a global consensus of scientists is somehow restricted from finding evidence that disproves the hypothesis. If a group of scientists could disprove such a widely accepted theory they would put a rocket under their careers and bring much notoriety and prestige to the institution they worked for. We trust science for our health i.e. being operated on in hospital, or that smoking is very likely to cause cancer, why don’t we trust it for the health of our planet, which is ultimately our health as well?

    • Finding data to support the movement of climate is easy. It is impossible to do other than theorise as to the cause of the changes unless you happen to have a spare earth we can run the low CO2 experiment on?

      • We’re running a CO2 experiment on the only Earth we have, but you appear to be happy to see us do that.

      • Except we aren’t doing the experiment, which is my point. No matter what happens, we have nothing to compare it against to determine any sort of result.

      • Except we aren’t doing the experiment

        Who do I believe, a cryptocoin fanboi or every fking climate scientist I’ve ever heard speak on this topic, all of whom state we are running an experiment on the climate? ffs

      • you don’t have to believe anyone. you could learn something and work it out for yourself.

        Like the people you’re insisting don’t know anything did ?

      • What a silly example.

        Science is constantly evolving based on data. Only with time can more data be quantified and tested. The example you gave is from what was known at the time and has since been revised and improved.

        To say that what was right 30 years ago never changes is just ridiculous.

      • Yes, and the actions of heat-trapping gases have been known since the 1800s. Arguing with it now is like saying the Earth is flat.

        Ooooh, look at all the (paid) flat-Earthers on this page!

        Thank you, Minerals Council

      • @ Bubbley
        Science is constantly evolving based on data. Only with time can more data be quantified and tested.

        So you would be open to a notion that in true science nothing is chiselled in stone and open for endless scrutiny?

      • I agree. Scientists can say some pretty stupid things. Especially scientists that are well paid for an opinion.
        The thing that I find so grossly alarming about the denier camp is that they fail to observe on which side of this debate the big money sits. There’s no absolutely money of any substance on the side of climate change. The ONLY money is big oil, big gas and big coal. Anyone who can’t see that is a complete and utter TARD.

    • “There is no controversial debate in the scientific community about this.”
      BS There is only no controversy amongst those who have their snouts in the trough and those who know nothing about it – like social scientists!

      • If a global consensus of scientists across a wide distribution of countries and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers in many different scientific journals doesn’t convince you then nothing will. A conspiracy theory that explains all that away is the mother of all conspiracies. It is not BS that there is virtual consensus on this in the scientific community. Most people who push the conspiracy angle are found to not even be qualified scientists.

      • Flawse, rubbish mate. We know who’s paying your bills. Minerals Council and Gina. The US is full of this kind of lying:

        The Heartland Institute: In March 2017, the Heartland Institute began targeting the nation’s 200,000 science teachers by mailing each a copy of its new book and DVD, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. The slick package stated that, even if climate change were real, “it would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”

        The Koch Brothers: The multibillionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are two of the most powerful people in the global oil industry, owning Koch Industries, a $100-billion conglomerate employing 100,000 people in 60 countries. They control 1-2 million acres of Alberta’s tar sands. The Kochs, bigger than either of the Democratic or Republican parties, manipulate both. A major focus of Koch money has been to ensure that no legislation is passed to curb the burning of fossil fuels. The brothers have gained pledges from 170 members of Congress that they will never support a tax on carbon. While attacking legitimate climate scientists, the Kochs were funding prominent pseudo-climate-scientists.

        ExxonMobil: In 2015, we learned from its own research that Exxon has known since 1980 that global warming is real. Kert Davies, former research Director of Greenpeace USA, revealed through ExxonSecrets.org that, meanwhile, ExxonMobil’s climate change denial funding totaled at least $33 million during the period 1997-2016. “At least $33 million” because much of the funding has been channeled through dark identity scrubbing groups such as Donors Trust and Donors Capital.

  18. Note to MB editors. You shouldn’t assume your audience are all climate change fanboys. The science isn’t settled, and even if it was, our 1.3% contribution to global warming isn’t worth the doubling of electricity prices we’ve experienced trying to ‘solve’ this problem. Can you stick to housing and investment strategies please.

    • Sorry to say this, but all the comments on here disputing the scientific evidence for human caused global warming are not scientific. First you need at least a PhD in a related scientific discipline to even begin meaningfully refuting the evidence. Would you trust an unqualified doctor to operate on your brain? Why does everyone suddenly become armchair scientists when it comes to global warming?

    • our 1.3% contribution to global warming isn’t worth the doubling of electricity prices we’ve experienced trying to ‘solve’ this problem

      You’re confused. Power prices here have nothing to do with AGW mitigation, and a lot to do with the lack of a domestic gas reservation policy, as well as pathetic investment in renewables and a lack of an energy policy.