Slashdot Mirror
UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming
iONiUM (530420) writes "'The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.' A document was released by the IPCC outlining the current affects on climate change, and they are not good. For specific effects on humans: 'Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.'"
Another scare report from the UN. How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?
The sun has three cycles... an 11 year cycle, and 80 year cycle, and a 200 year cycle. we are starting to dip into the 200 year solar minimum.. this affects solar radiant output. Check with NASA if you don't believe me. Have you wondered why this winter was colder than normal for the Northern Hemisphere ?
It's coming.. a cool down.
This is why spring weather is late too.
It won't be long until the Oceans cool down too. Once that happens the Icecaps will refreeze.
As opposed to the Tree-hugger Liberation Army, which is apparently paid to do the exact opposite of what you have described?
Radical right-wing Christians believe in the Apocalypse, and vote for military build-ups and wars of choice. Radical left-wing UN types believe in AGW, and have the ability to fuck up our food supply and create wars too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "If you continuously prophesy doom, you will eventually be correct".
Note, not happy, satisfied, productive or anything really virtuous... just "correct".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill.
That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
More people are finally realizing that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a farce pushed by the Totalitarians (both far Left and far Right) to gain control of the World. Those that subscribe to AGW want to run every aspect of everybody's lives with the AGW people in charge. And the UN is the place where these petite-dictators have the most power or at least think they do.
Right, because you're different ... and by different I mean exactly the same except for the other team.
Give me a break. This retarded report says the world is going to end and theres absolutely nothing thats going to stop that no matter how hard we try.
Guess what, theres no point in me giving a shit then.
Next time you want to spread some FUD, at least have the intelligence to not spread so much bullshit as to shoot yourself in the foot in the process.
When you write ignorant reports like this, clearly politically motivated by the fact that their own data contradicts the report .... well, its pretty hard to get anyone to give a flying fuck what you have to say.
Theres a story you should check up on, something about a boy who cried wolf.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary": http://joannenova.com.au/2014/...
People here tend to forget that the UN is filled to the brim with corruption. That their human rights body is chaired by countries with the worst human rights records -- and worse, that this is allowed to continue -- demonstrates why everything that comes out of the UN should be looked at with the greatest scepticism.
So if someone disagrees with you (or the article) they are immediately labeled a climate denier?
Way to win an argument, might as well call them racist while you're at it.
"Warmer temperatures mean more desertification and changes in rain belts."
No, it doesn't. It means changes in desertification, but less overall. Higher temperatures means higher atmospheric water content, which means fewer overall dry regions. It isn't all going to dump preferentially on just a few areas.
I find it hilarious that just a few days after NOAA recently predicted prolonged drought in California, it experienced near-record torrential rainfall over wide areas.
Wow, the climate deniers are out in force on Slashdot today.
Well it's funny you should mention an overwhelming show of force, because I have sure seen a LOT of news outlets promoting this most recent bout of religious warming alarmism.
We already know that the warming we will see is not anything to get excited over (with CO2 levels rising, warming has not gone up much so we know that CO2 does not cause runaway warming as posited).
We also know the alarmist models were all way out of whack in prediction of everything bad - from sea level rise to overall temperature increases, the models have predictive lines formed a decade ago that are far higher than actual measurements we take today.
Here's the part where you can tell real science from SCIENCE, the screaming variety. You see, real scientists upon finding the models aren't working would try to find new models that worked. Instead what we get is louder and louder proclamations that WE ARE ALL DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY.
Here's someone that gives a more reasonable overview of the panicky IPCC report - as he notes, the current report is LESS scary than the IPCC's previous report, yet they are playing it up as if it were worse.
And he has something to say about the use of the term "deniers" - basically you and others are misunderstanding the counter argument at hand:
In climate science, the real debate has never been between "deniers" and the rest, but between "lukewarmers," who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming.
This is the outlook of a reasonable man, as all of the "deniers" have been - simply because we see no reason to scare others, or divert money from REAL pollution control efforts to attempt to reduce emissions of a basically harmless gas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As is true on both sides, most people arguing have no financial stake.
If you think about it oil companies arguing against global warming is just stupid, because they make as much money from people running AC as they do heat. They also have interest in the alternative energy industry - they see that coming and WILL be making money that way too.
The people mainly engaging in banditry here are the warming alarmists, scooping in government funds or starting "green" companies that snap up government loans then shut down after a few years, after making the founders very rich and of course funneling a percentage to the politicians who voted to give the companies the loans to start with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What you're seeing is weather, not climate.
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
Wasn't that what the AGW alarmists said back in the 90's, and then kept adding years to it as the warming trend "paused" for the last 18 years?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
And many of the years touted were el nino years, so I guess much of the fear mongering is based on weather and not climate?
Every time I hear that dismissive expression, I want to bash a global warming alarmist in the face with a snow ball. Because NO ONE, uses weather to argue for their position more than GWA advocates.
While temps go up for both, the mitigation scenario leads to a much more livable planet, closer to the one we live in today.
This is why nobody listens to you. You took a perfectly valid sentence about the paper and went ahead and made your sentence invalid, and its because you wanted to load your sentence up to make the sentence stronger.
Its stronger, but now its also a fabrication. We observe that you fabricated, therefore we tune you right the fuck out.
"His name was James Damore."