On October 6, 2019 at 17:20, djy said...
I'm not sure how your expression applies to your original comment, but if I were to use it I see IPCC science as the broken clock and sceptic science telling me what the time really is.
almost there. (continue after next quote)
The IPCC is political organisation which assesses climate change science and issues reports upon it on behalf of the UN. Being political it seeks evidence to support a narrative and ignores that which does not. The concern of sceptic scientists is that political science (their willingness to overlook outrageous behaviour and bad science at the expense of alternative, less frightening scenarios) is overriding the scientific method. In short, that genuine understanding is being sacrificed for a political agenda. 1
You see you keep on trying to explain why the IPCC is a broken clock. IMHO it does not matter if it is or is not. If the clock is broken and the time is correct then the time is correct. If the clock is broken and the time is wrong then we are better off determining what the time is.
I am not being dismissive but saying "sceptic science telling me what the time really is." does not say much, it just like politics, saying Xs methodology might be flawed and so his conclusion could be wrong, is useless.
2). The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor of those 'richer' nations expected to make the sacrifices.
so what is the solution?
Where?
let me not go too far you said "has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger" right? you said in this post "The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor"
If they are there to help the poor then it does not make sense that they would mess up the data to push global warming and hurt the poor.
Well I think that rather depends upon one's interpretation of worse. Again I don't mean to be crass, but I don't see your friend's flooding issues being justification for spending trillions and impoverishing entire countries on 'combating' what could be a non-issue. Indeed, an enhanced level of atmospheric CO2 could just as easily be seen a positive boon. 5 & 6
The issue it is not just my friends home, he was one of the tens of thousands that were affected. and if warming means more ice melting it means sooner or later there will be even more houses affected. And it is not just flooding but look at what is happening on Mont blanc.
Adaption to change would be a more pragmatic solution.
agree, but aren't you the one against adapting to change?
Moving away from a flooded place is adapting, paying to help people move is adapting, but isn't changing stuff so that the disasters don't happen also adapting? You are the one that is not willing to adapt to the reality that electricity from consumables is more expensive and an issue and so eliminating them (if possible) makes both economic and environmental sense.
I fully appreciate you didn't say 'any of that absurd stuff', but one needs to reread your comment:
"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)."
Reshaping the world to better serve our needs is not challenging natural climate change. The question thus remains, what would you do?
well first let's reduce the negative impact we are having, then we can see how much is left. Maybe none will be left, if there is a bit more some small projects might be enough (such as planting more trees, they don't care if it is coming from a coal plant or a volcano). Maybe we need to have a better plan for an other green house gas...
can we agree it is warmer now then a few years ago?
can we agree it appears it will continue getting warmer?
can we agree this is not because the sun has gotten brighter, the earths orbit has drastically changed, the earths spin/axis has not changed?
