Global warming ? Climate change? Global cooling?

Did you read the Lakoff article I added? It’s about framing. If you respond to a non-comment about wildfires, you enter his frame and lose the frame that you had.

If i understand, if we are exchanging about the song Imagine and if someone makes an attack about my position upon another topic, out of context, I ignore it.

I will try to follow this advice as, nowadays, every topic derails into an endless argument.

As says the wise man : " dont argue with a fol, at the end 2 fools will be arguing.

Conversations going off topic are not the worst offense. Personal attacks are high on the list of bad offenses.

Calling out climate change hypocrites. This was a thing of beauty

What was beautiful about it?
Little guy sticking it to the great white hypocrite?

What’s this have to do with the physical reality of humanity driving extreme climate change? Or that an extremely changing climate, thanks to a warming ‘global heat and moisture distribution engine,’ will be destructive to human agriculture, infrastructure and living conditions.

Who’s at fault and who’s innocent doesn’t have much to do with the physical reality unfolding before our complacent eyes.

On a side note, looking at the title of this thread.
We do understand that a freezing air mass causing winter extremes, because the jet stream has punched it out of the Arctic Circle, doesn’t equal Global Cooling. What it does mean is that heat gets transported around our planet?

Or is it simply another example of how we are stuck within our thoughts, while remaining rather oblivious to Earth’s (or our own) physical realities?

Was that a misquote about the lobbyists? I don’t see where daniel said it. You comments were spot on otherwise.

It was in the tweet he quoted


Cool. I’m still not quite getting where Daniel stands. I get the paradox (or dilema), that small countries need to participate in the economy to survive, but the economy is harming the planet. Journalist picks in the little guy for doing what the rest of the world is doing.

My opinion, the journalist should she going after the big countries and asking them how they are going to save the forest, like Guyana did.

Other point

The richest 1 percent of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 than the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity,

[Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity | Oxfam International]

[Which countries are contributing the most to climate change?]

I’m sure the next time he interviews some septic military industrial complex dude he will start off with questions about how much they contribute to global warming (they’d be the 47th worst country on the planet if they were a state) on TOP of US big energy being horrific. I’m sure.

Fantastic to see it, especially when he tried to cut him off and the pres is like, “Nah geezer, I ain’t done yet”. Have it!

As well you shouldn’t. When he has no one else to insult, he just types a headline from yesterday’s news. I silenced him for a month.”

The Texas Panhandle fire was so devastating that Hemphill County Emergency Management Coordinator Bill Kendall described the charred terrain as “like a moonscape. … It’s all gone.”

Texas largest ever wildfire scorched about 1,058,570 acres from Hutchinson County to Hemphill County,

Case on point. Welcome back

With the headline case on point being understanding the impact of climate change as the report says current policies are leading us to a 3 degree increase world.

In the words of climate scientists Daniela Jacob and Tania Guillen Bolanos - “widespread and escalating climate change risk” is the future that awaits humanity if immediate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not implemented.

A wet future for mankind - . 38.5 deg C above normal in Antarctica

The greatest rise of abnormal temperature over average ever recorded on the planet occurred in Antarctica, which now seems to have started the ice-wasting disease previously confined to the Arctic and the world’s glaciers.

This amazement was shared by glaciologist Prof Martin Siegert, of the University of Exeter. “No one in our community thought that anything like this could ever happen. It is extraordinary and a real concern,” he told the Observer . “We are now having to wrestle with something that is completely unprecedented.”

Oh that eternal fall back. Woes me, who could have imagined such a thing?

Well, in answer, anyone who seriously looked at, and digested, the scientific information that had been gathering for over a century, back when I entered high school in 1969!

Climate scientists have been terrified of politicized attacks since around the 90’s.
They weren’t allowed to air the full spectrum of trouble they were measuring and figuring out with ever greater detail.

You familiar with the Ben Santer story?

Climate report ‘subject to scientific cleansing’

Santer says he is angry that the GCC “is making a big stink of the whole affair”, espe- cially because the report’s key phrase - “taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate” - was approved by all 100 participating govern- ments and is contained in both the draft and the published IPCC report.

Oct 6, 2023 - Wilkes Center
In November 1995, at a plenary meeting in Madrid, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalized one of the most famous findings in the history of climate science assessments.

The finding consisted of 12 words: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” - the first time the international scientific community claimed to have identified a human-caused signal in observed climate records.

Ben Santer, the Convening Lead Author for Chapter 8, tells the story of how and why this finding was reached, and what happened before, during and after the publication of the 1995 IPCC Report.

This talk was recorded on Thursday, Oct. 5th, 2023 in the Crocker Science
Center, at the University of Utah.

Ben Santer is the Wilkes Center Visiting Chair, and Fowler Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Visiting Researcher at UCLA’s Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

Politically, there was a party to be had and no scientists were going to rain on the plans of super rich to supercharge humans demand upon Earth limited resources. When it was knowably the worst possible decision for future outcomes. Here we are.

You know what they say - Deal with it.

Earth’s "party is just getting started, …

“Net Zero” is a con. When you understand there isn’t a country in the world that is promising to be in carbon credit, where are the overseas “credits” that govenmetns say they’ll buy going to come from? Until recently, and I don’t know what our present government are going to do, a previous National administration were promising to meet their Paris commitments by buying 80% of the so-called emissions reductions from overseas. A ten year old could tell you that is every country was to to do this, there’d be a problem.

The ETS too is a scam. It’s a way of conjuring up vast sums of imaginary credit on the basis of tree planting or forest protection or fugitive methane reductions etc, when these things will achieve nothing, and in twenty - thirty year’s time, much of that money will need to be paid, by guess who? - the public. NZ has given away tens of billions of dollars worth of emission credits to our most polluting industries which will still be there in 2050!! In the meantime, vast acreages will be planted in ecologically dead pine forests in New Zealand Ireland, Scotland etc. The money involved is to be counted in trillions of dollars.

Our politicians, business leaders, even our commentators bar a few exceptions are all in on this. - with politicians, sometimes it’s just greed, eg party contributions, vested interest, sometimes ignorance - most politicians have little scientific intelligence, but mostly just they don’t want to rock the boat, which of course is heading ever more rapidly to the rocks.

We have already passed 1.5 deg C in some measurements, as I said we would in 2015 after the Paris agreement, and I see 2 deg C reached by 2050, 3 deg by 2075, and it’ll be around 4 to 5 deg C by the end of the century. Globel temperature has just passed a rubicon, a tipping point, and it’s going to rise much faster fro now on. The cynics have it right, net zero is impossible in our present way of society. Fortunately I won’t be here when the whole planet comes more to resemble Easter Island in its dereliction…

Of course the public will pay. Millionaires profit off the public welfare, but when it’s time to pay for it, suddenly they want to be treated like equals. “The public”, not sure what think that is, will either pay in taxes, higher prices, or they’ll just die because there is no water or no relief from the heat.

Or, we change the system.

Think. Consider the key point of what’s being said here before shooting from the hip.

Western govts are selling the snakeoil to its people that net zero is the way to address AGW . Snakeoil as cutting emissions is not addressed. Kevin Trenberth makes the point

“This arithmetic highlights the tremendous need to cut emissions. There is no viable workaround”

I don’t disagree with that

1 Like