For starters, the IPCC does not report that the effects are going to lead to us being “among the last people that will ever walk the Earth” and that our “children won’t survive to middle age”.
One bit that is not reported properly is the expected ocean rise, of course if nothing is done to control emissions then the most likely outcome will be the high estimates, but this blog is alarmist for not explaining properly that the rise will take hundreds of years, the more immediate threats of climate disruption with droughts and an increase on extreme weather is very bad, but not an end of civilization thing. Another item is that while it is true that humans are now mostly ignoring the warnings, humanity has demonstrated that eventually they will do the right thing, the unfortunate point is that in this tragedy of the commons industry has decided to leave the solutions to outfits like Green Peace.
Instead of being proactive they, most of them and so far, have decided to go down the road of funding politicians that even deny that there is a problem to begin with. However, even there I expect a change because a continuation of their denials will only lead most of the population to the conclusion that Republicans are the problem in this case, they will have to act soon or be voted out of office.
Well, part of my question is, if he’s right about the catastrophic change occurring within 50 years, that’s not enough time for humanity to “do the right thing,” is it?
Why is it so impossible that he’s right, given his graph (yes, I know, it means little, but I haven’t seen anyone say why the data in it is wrong; just that it’s wrong)?
Again, based on what scientists told alarmists like Lovelock there is no need to reach for the end of times levels mentioned by the blogger.
Most scientists continue to report that the problem will be bad, but not at the levels of an extinction of the human race.
There is a basic problem here, that is based on an estimate that is bound to change. Not data. Scientists do report that the high provability is mentioned in the graph, but that is not the most likely warming predicted.
Some people are generating their own green energy and even taking themselves off the grid. There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site www.diyenergyreview.com if you’re interested?
And no, I did not dodged his profession, you did; a manager in a hospital, for example, does not need to be a doctor, just another basic thing you need to learn about organizations, and you still need to learn to stop depending on Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda press.
Just one more point, although it is fun to see how you only want to haplessly triple down on a “saying” of Pachauri that still has a dubious origin and misrepresents what the science says.
What we have here so far is just a great example of how the tabloid press misrepresents what a manager said when the scientists are still there publishing the science that should be looked at; as evidence of the straws they have to grasp now, the reporters of the tabloids have reduced themselves to misrepresent or fake what a manager said in order to continue to tell some groups of people what they just want to hear, it does not matter that in the end it is just a self contradictory mess of FUD.
And on this you want to say that I have the problem? Dream on. The problem is not realizing after the present and many previous examples how misleading The Australian, The Daily Mail and other sources are, and every one that still relies on them either has to demand better from them, or dump them as sources of information. It will increase exponentially the quality of your arguments and prevent stupid self-burning points like this one in the future.
I’m such an skeptic that that I have to inform you that your post looks like spam.
But just as a comment, after I get job nearby, I’m planing to stop using the car and properly insulating my house and getting some solar panels, and over here in Phoenix we do get a good amount of our energy from nuclear power too and I’m not complaining about that at all, we should set more nuclear and solar plants over here.
I didn’t know that the Met Office was own by Murdoch.
You’re still on that? That is so page 1. It’s not like the Met Office know what they are saying.
Maybe you’re still angry about my Hansen-is-a-deep-cover-sceptic joke, where you defended him like his girlfirend. (or was it Mann?)
You’re right. The Met Office (the source of the really important quote, the actual science, the actual facts, the actual data and not the out of context, lies, drama from others) must be tabloid press. The Australian is JAMA compared to a direct, full quote from the actual scientific source. THe possible (mis)uses are the important things, apparently, never the actual data. You can always think you can win with the biased spins some people take with science and therefore focus on that, iving you an excuse to dodge science. Of course always trying to say I’m misleading even if I provide a full direct quote quote.
OK, let’s see what you do with this.
I COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY DISOWN THE AUSTALIAN, DM, AND TELEGRAPH QUOTES UNTIL THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SOURCE THAT WE BOTH AGREE IS UNBIASED. SO, WE’LL ASSUME PACHAURI DIDN’T SAY IT UNTIL WE FIND A VIDEO OR HIM SAYING IT.
Now, let’s talk about the one source of data we both agree is full unbiased science, ie., the full link to the Met Office’s report.
Meltdowns are not pretty. Except by the people that notices how contrarian points are burned on the side.
It is clear that you still do not get it, it was the tabloids and contrarian sites that also came with the original “it has not warmed since X” point came from too, and it is still a dishonest point from them.
And on this Gavin Schmidt was correct.
But it did not matter as it is clear some posters still go for the spin from the tabloids rather than what even the Met office says, as they reported, anyone pretending that there is no warming has their head in the sand.
And this is again, (as the dishonesty of the tabloids and contrarian blogs was reported before but never learned by you) one has to look at longer trends to see that it is irresponsible to look at just recent slowdowns caused by natural cycles. It is not only their dataset of the surface temperature that the Met office uses to report that this idea of using their data in a deceptive way is still the wrong thing to do.
Of course this was already mentioned before, but as usual, I expect only the usual rejection of even what skeptical scientists like Christie report on this issue, drop it or “you will kill us” -Pat Michaels. And the context of that is precisely what it was shown before, cherry picking just recent surface temperature readings (that are not all of them and they miss the ocean temperature rise) only makes the job of the skeptical fossil fuel funded scientists harder, their job now is to report the only card left, and it is that most of the scientists are correct on the temperature increase brought by human emissions, but that the warming will be on the low end of the predictions. They do not need the “help” from pseudo scientists that report that the warming has stopped.
Returning to that discredited “lets only use the recent temperature record” is not used even by skeptical scientists, bloggers and tabloid press are reaching only for pseudo-scientist arguments that would only make astrologers proud.
I COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY DISOWN THE AUSTALIAN, DM, AND TELEGRAPH QUOTES UNTIL THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SOURCE THAT WE BOTH AGREE IS UNBIASED. SO, WE’LL ASSUME PACHAURI DIDN’T SAY IT UNTIL WE FIND A VIDEO OR HIM SAYING IT.
I thought it was enough.
So, to be clear, you’re still incapable of talking about one, simple, full, direct link to an organization you respect in the field of GW?
I guess there is no SkS page for that.
PS: I’ve almost completely lost interest in this thread, but I’ve got too may friends watching and laughing at your Barry Sanders levels of evasion.
I don’t even think that you have that many friends, what it counts is what even skeptical scientists say, you are still cherry picking a recent temperature record to obtain a misleading point for all to see.
I prefer to see what the overall message is, even the Met office reports on how incomplete their record is compared to others that show more warming, your point is still bananas, The Met office continues to report that the earth is warming. And it is still dishonest to grab recent temperature records and ignore the past ones, the only purpose is to tell others to ignore the big picture. A very useless effort as even skeptical scientists told you too.
Just one more thing, this clearly demonstrates to all that you are even telling even your friends to ignore links from the Met office news department. (yes, that is the Met office too, it is clear that you only burned your sorry point with no help from me in this case)
Hey, it is not my problem that you are willing to double down on not only discredited points, but ther is also a double-down on demonstrating to others a complete lack of an ability to check citations.
I doubt that the Earth will ever have “no greenhouse gases”, but the CO2 level is decreasing over geological time, and will eventually reach very low levels which will probably be insufficient to support plant life as we know it.
See this wikipedia section;
If humans or their descendants are still around in a few tens of millions of years, it might be necessary to artificially release CO2 into the atmosphere to provide enough carbon for photosynthesis.
A low level of CO2 would tend to cause an ice age on our world, but the slow, gradual heating of our Sun will bring the cooling to an end in the long term. By 500 million years from present our planet will be uninhabitably hot, unless our descendants take even more drastic action.
Mmm, I tried to concentrate on his points, not him, but if that is the case I will continue in the pit, although I don’t feel any anger, only amusement at the efforts seen by him so far.
If we don’t assign blame by parsing the numbers, we won’t get to any solution at all, will we?
Your failure to understand why a per capita proportion is the only one that matters suggests to me that neither you nor anyone who holds your approach will be able to ever come to any effective solution.
You see, if Al Gore and I are living high off the hog at 20 tons CO2 produced/yr, and Joe Tanzania is living low off the hog at 300 pounds/yr, the idea that we should both pitch in and control an anthropogenic problem with equal gusto becomes ridiculous. The notion that I get to to holler about AGW without first conforming myself to the standard I’m calling out for Joe is so hypocritical that it’s a non starter.
At a national level, if China’s output is one-third of the US output, China’s response should be simple to an AGW crisis: Hey folks; lets’ establish a norm of one-half of the current US output. That’s gives us room to give our peeps a better standard than their current crappy one, and allows the US to get in line with a standard that is less destructive to the world.
Get it?
No regulations; no painful solutions; no common agreements; no market economics are going to be agreed upon with an underlying assumption that the haves get to continue to have while the have nots should hold off having until we solve the CO2 production problem. Like me and Al, the average Chinese guy wants to live well right now; not at some vague future point after AGW is solved.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
If we don’t assign blame by parsing the numbers, we won’t get to any solution at all, will we?
[/QUOTE]
How has assigning blame worked out so far? I’m sorry, but your assertion here is ridiculous. The only way we are going to get solutions is to look at the whole problem, and work on realistic solutions, not try and assign blame, which does dick wrt actually solving a gods damned thing.
And, frankly, I feel exactly the same way about your assertions…it won’t and, more importantly HASN’T solved anything by trying to parse the numbers and assign blame. The US and EU have flattened out or even begun to decrease their emissions, while China and India has exploded in their own. Any realistic decrease by the US or EU is not ever going to keep up with the explosive growth in those other countries. The only solution is to find realistic ways to begin addressing the gross CO2 production across the board, not ridiculous parsing of the figures in some effort to point fingers.
No, the notion that by parsing the numbers in this way will actually do something is the non-starter…which should be obvious, since folks like you have been doing this literally for decades now and thus far it’s done dick. No one questions that the average US or EU citizen produces more CO2 emissions…the trouble is doing something about it. And, by you ignoring the fact that China is now the number one CO2 emitter (by parsing the number and dividing by billions, as if that matters in some way to the actual environment) you simply muddy the waters and basically make it so nothing gets done. Because, the reality is that you and Al Gore are not going to substantially reduce your emissions simply because you try and run a guilt trip about per capita emissions…in fact, you are smugly sitting there posting on a computer and probably in a climate controlled building, demonstrating exactly why your emissions are so high compared to your theoretical Joe in Tanzania.
At a national level, China’s CO2 output is the highest in the world. It’s not 1/3 of that in the US, assuming that’s what you are talking about. You are attempting to cloud that fact by dividing their CO2 output by the one and a half billion people that live in China, which is meaningless…the only important factor is that they are putting X amount of green house gas into the atmosphere per year, and that this number is going to continue to climb as their standard of living climbs…and it’s going to climb a hell of a lot faster than any realistic drop by either the US and EU is going to be. And that this is going to have a major detrimental impact on this planet and on our climate.
Do you? Seemingly not.
The last part of your sentence is pretty much what I’ve been saying, so no idea how you think that helps your argument (such as it is). I’m not seeing the ‘no regulations’ part, since the irony is that both the US/EU AND China have regulations…but of the 3, only the US and the EU actually and systematically enforce them. As for the ‘no painful solutions’, yup…because human nature being what it is, that’s not going to fly in the face of a problem like this one. Instead, you need to think of real world and realistic solutions. Might want to start by getting the folks blocking nuclear energy out of the way. As for ‘no market economics’, that’s horseshit…we are ALREADY seeing market impacts on green energy solutions. Cars (in the US and EU) have gotten a hell of a lot more efficient, and continue to do so. Companies are much more focused on saving money through energy efficiency, and again that continues to expand. Green technology has literally billions in R&D happening today, and has even begun to be installed in production systems (IIRC, the US is the number one users of wind power in the world in the total number of wind turbines and actual generated power). Market solutions are the only realistic method to start addressing any of this…not trying to parse the numbers to set blame. Market solutions coupled with government regulation.
on a “saying” of Pachauri that still has a dubious origin and misrepresents what the science says.
I’m sorry, but your assertion here is ridiculous. The only way we are going to get solutions is to look at the whole problem, and work on realistic solutions, not try and assign blame, which does dick wrt actually solving a gods damned thing.