On September 26, 2019 at 15:36, djy said...
Part One
A common misconception is one of the IPCC being a scientific body. It's not; it's political. It assess the science of climate change on behalf of the UN who, as previously mentioned, has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger; with everything else being subservient to these two imperatives. Surely then it's not too much of a leap to determine that the IPCC is seeking climate science evidence in support of those imperatives (evidence supporting demands for a profound political change) and downplaying, or even ignoring, that which doesn't. ...
I hope you don’t mind if I don’t copy everything, but I did read the rest just shortening to simplify,
First I am not the IPCC or work for them, you have to stop fighting them and bring the discussion to DJY and Anthony.
Second you say “two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger;” I don’t understand how that makes them the bad guys, those sound like good goals to me.
Thirdly I don’t get why it matters. Let me put it this way, if you have some poor hungry people in the jungle wouldn’t using the money now wasted fighting global warming to chop down the forest, build a couple of apartments, build a polluting turn of the century factory, plant some of the new fields with crops, ship stuff to and from the people working in that new “developed place” to the rest of the world do more to help those people with hunger and poverty? I don’t see any real benefit for the IPCC to create a fake boogeyman
Lastly are they seeking out the evidence? I think they are but isn’t that the definition of investigating, what should they do? Turn a blind eye to it because it is an inconvenient truth?
the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen...substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling ... whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events...has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least be partially explained by them
On September 7, 2019 at 11:46, I said...
1) if everyone agrees it is not 100% geogenic then does it really matter if it is 5% man made or 95% man made (don't get me wrong if it is 5% it means we have a harder job to do but isn't it still better to minimise that 5% or what ever % you feel is right?)
2) also the issue of anthropogenic and geogenic is that the two are not necessarily distinguishable for example the permafrost has a lot of global warming gases trapped in it but because it is frozen they are trapped. Now because of global warming more of more of the permafrost is not permafrost any more and the thaw means those gases are released to exacerbate the problem. Would it be fair to categorize it as natural if it was not an issue for the centuries it remained frozen?
does any of that contradict what
I said or does it agree with it? It only contradicts what you think the IPPC and Santer said. The only way to be able to say it is 100%
of natural causes is if somehow you could prove that it is impossible that the man made versions of the gazes can’t make it that high (while the natural vesions can) as well as at the lower level they can’t have an impact (i.e. more man made gases don’t mean more natural gases).
My condolences to your friend,
no need, I just brought it up because it fit in the discussion. It is one thing to read in an article about people throwing a good party for a glacier and hearing it might become an issue 100 years from now and completely different to realize that we are living in a new normal.
but in a naturally warming world, sea-level rise is inevitable and something which has been occurring steadily for the past 160
But you see it is not steadily. My friend has had the place for over 30 years, his dad bought a house in that neighbourhood around 80 years ago no one imagined it would happen. After the 2017 flood my friend joked that it wasn’t all bad, it was the kick needed for a remodel and now it will be good for as long as he owns the house.
I appreciate it's of little consolation (and contrary to what you appear to believe), but once again there is no clear evidence of a CO2 influence.
But there is. All the evidence sais the same thing, it is a matter of interpretation As to how much is man made and how much is natural. The issue I have is does it really matter ? like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder)
As a bit of an aside, an excellent example of a man-made catastrophe is that of flooding of the Somerset Levels over the winter of 2013/14.20 As Booker reported at the time,21 the usual suspects initially attempted to blame climate change. It didn't take long, however, to discover that it was more the result of a toxic mix of low lying land, EU directives, Environment Agency/DEFRA incompetence, environmentalism, and an embarrassingly bad MET Office weather report.22
never said global warming is the only thing that destroys lives, but like you pointed out when there is an other cause dumb excuses don’t last long.
Last edited by Anthony on September 29, 2019 16:17.
