Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military (theguardian.com)
Citing military experts, The Guardian is reporting that if the rise in global warming is held under 2 degrees Celsius, there still could be a major humanitarian crisis to sort out. From the report: Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of "unimaginable scale," according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the "new normal." The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required. "Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century," said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "Weâ(TM)re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."
...and yet the article proceeds to imagine this crisis.
Just in case their crazy-sounding warning happens to come true.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You don't mean military. You mean ex military who have sucked off the taxpayers teat all theirs Ives and are now retired on a taxpayer pension and looking to make even more money as "advisors". Everyone is trying to make a buck off is a crises
Slashdot lost credibility a long time ago.
So far, the model predictions have been wildly different from reality, and there are very real disputes about not only the methodology of data collection and interpretation, but also the very mathematics used to extrapolate that data into predictions about the future.
A government's power grows under crisis; when there's no crisis, just manufacture one!
This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020, if it is, refugees from San Francisco will come *here* wearing their assless leather pants. That's worrisome.
Now back to News for Nerds.
Any country that actually implements climate change mitigations should hard-reject migrants from countries that deny its effects. Free riders should suffer the consequences, and should bear the brunt of the catastrophe so that there are less mouths the feed after we lose the arable land caused by climate change.
I thought "climate change" was a Chinese hoax. Is the military now in cahoots with foreigners?
So nature is going to do humanity a solid by killing off a large selection of hipsters. Good to know.
“Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century,” said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change.."
The military wouldn't say something like this about fake global warming, so this has to be another fake story.
Don't deny the science. The earth is 1.8 degrees hotter than the last 100 year average. Not sure why I would relocate over a 1 degree change in average temperature, but I just follow the science not hysteria.
There is only crisis if 'we' allow it. Securing the boarders against 'mass migration' would be easy.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Radical Islam can't be a factor here. It's all due to climate change. The fact that your country doesn't have a very good handle on it's own radical insurgents doesn't mean you're looking for convenient scapegoats to deflect blame to. Naw.
Right, Boko Haram's systematic rape and murder of insufficiently Islamic villagers in Africa is all about climate change. Gotcha.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are lots of room in the north. Only thing that is needed is preparation, shedding of complacency and optimization of food production efficiency with industrial scale indoor and high-efficiency farming. My small country could take at least 120 million people more assuming globally optimized food production. The neighbors could take millions and millions more. The 30 million refugees is nothing in the world that has finally gotten through the culture shock and grown up. Grown up in all sides, of course.
Ah yes, some oil company-funded think tanks and a couple of climatologists who have never published any of their AGW-crushing research must be speaking the truth, whereas the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are faking it.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In South America, glaciers are disappearing so fast that people are running out of water, and moving to other places, regardless of boundaries.
Even internally you can see the migration occurring in North America, regardless of boundaries, or oceans.
Now if only these land-hoarding NIMBYs would stop their futile attempts to resist growth, and decommission the empty states and counties, we'd be fine.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"former military adviser to [...] Bangladesh"
This is what Slashdot refers to simply as, "Military".
I looked at my news feed and thought this article came from The Onion until I clicked it.
The Russians are Mongols. They are Slavs and a lot of them used to be ruled by Ancient Byzantium. From Genghis Kahn to Stalin, they have not changed. They never will, and we will never learn, at least, not until it is too late.
--EOM--
love is just extroverted narcissism
A bit dated from 2009, but a good series on future-casting the Geo-politics of climate change. http://gwynnedyer.com/radio/
refugees from San Francisco will come *here* wearing their assless leather pants. That's worrisome.
I have seen San Francisco on TV, and this is exactly how all of them dress all the time.
Ah yes, some oil company-funded think tanks and a couple of climatologists who have never published any of their AGW-crushing research must be speaking the truth, whereas the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are faking it.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
As opposed to the current way research dollars are handed out?
Given two studies, one that says "OMG!!! We might be headed for a disaster!" and "Nah, it's no big deal.", which researcher gets the follow-on money?
If you're going to reflexively attack one side of the funding coin, you'd be an utter hypocrite to ignore the other side.
I guess chicken little climate alarmists will have to do.
Fact is there will be a huge immigration problem caused by an economic collapse which is caused by the New World order.
Climate change has nothing to do with it. 6 degrees is insignificant.
And where is your evidence for that claim?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think this was covered already:
Dale Gribble: "I say let the world warm up, see what Boutros Boutros-Ghali-Ghali thinks about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska."
Hank Hill: "Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas. It's already a hundred and ten in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass"
You sound exactly like you work on the @HouseScience committee.
Who yesterday tweeted out an anti climate change article. From Breitbart. Because it got colder. In winter.
Holy Fucking Shit.
https://twitter.com/HouseScien...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy. Heck, buy a bunch of safe property while you're at it, great money to be made when the waters rise!
It's the people who insist that other people need to change everything they do because Climate Change, but aren't taking the threat seriously in their own life, who piss me off right up there with the hypocritical televangelists.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Who pays you Marvin?
Not even cooling, more like freezing.
Let'a hope Trump's wall is able to withstand all of the refugees.
Next time, please cite your sources.
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2011/11/08/san-francisco-naked-city-with-a-napkin-below/
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the only thing you proved is that the media has been sensationalizing and misreporting science for a very long time.
and you get modded down because the things you say are discredited BS, the same tired BS that gets trotted out by "skeptics" every time.
only thing is, a skeptic only gets to question until his question actually gets answered.
it is then, when begin ignoring science and still post the same BS that you are no longer a skeptic.
you are not a skeptic.
you are a troll, posting BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Currently I live about two hours from the ocean. I also live a few miles upland of pliocene escarpment. If we take that to be the high water mark, the worst case scenario is I get a house near the beach if Antarctica totally melts.
In light of this news...time to start building those walls NOW....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Billions will die!? The world is overpopulated anyway.
And you prove point #1, congratulations. smh
This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020,
Correct. San Francisco is very hilly. They may have to elevate the freeway, but most of it will be fine.
http://www.floodmap.net/Elevat...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Trump confirms it's imagination, and luckjily the military knows how to follow orders so we won't waste time on this
So fucking things up immensely on a global scale leads to shit getting immensely fucked up on a global scale? Color me surprised. I just hope it doesn't affect the skeptics and deniers, it might bruise their egos.
There hasn't been a serious claim of global cooling in nearly half a century. This is like saying "Well, you know, up until relatively recently lots of people believed the sun circled the Earth."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I just copy and paste this into threads every time it comes up...
There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Nope. I just modded it "redundant" because you just told me it is.
In 2005, there was a prediction that 50 million people would be displaced by global warming by 2010. Didn't even come close to coming true.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html
This article has a rather strident tone but has solid links to document the above story.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
These claims were put forward by Norman Myers. After the prediction didn't pan out for 2010, he made updated claims: now it will be 200 million displaced, by 2050.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23899195
I'm not a climate scientist, but as far as I can tell, the worries about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have led to very few testable predictions, and the few that have been tested have not proven out. The predicted sea level rise and flooding by 2010 didn't happen, and the computer models that try to predict warming due to carbon dioxide are very far off their predictions.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/13/the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictions/
People argue over whether there was a "global warming pause" or not, but I think it's pretty clear that even if global warming didn't pause, the total carbon dioxide concentration went up a lot during that time yet the predicted temperature rises didn't occur.
There is a saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not convinced that the claims of global warming problems even rise to the level of ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary.
So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look. But at the moment, I think we have plenty of other worries that are higher priority.
P.S. The article suggests that Boko Haram is being driven by climate change. Boko Haram itself says that it is driven by a desire to create an Islamic state and to impose Sharia law. I view this attempt to form a linkage between climate change and Boko Haram as unsubstantiated hand-waving. As I understand it, the claimed link is that global warming leads to displaced and impoverished people who are more likely to join Boko Haram, but I'd like to see some evidence. Are there any factors other than climate change that might lead to people being displaced and impoverished? How do you control for such factors in any predictions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Translation: I have no evidence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know, the ones we were already supposed to have?
By 2010?
That was according to the United Nations Environment Program. You know, a bunch of those experts who are telling us about all of the disasters global warming was supposed to have caused by now.
All of the "endangered" places that they talked about have had population increases since then, and no serious out-migration.
Of course, they noticed that prediction had failed spectacularly, so in 2011 they changed the date to 2020.
And no, the trend still hasn't changed.
You wanted to go "lalala, I can't hear you", so if you now leave your shore settlement to climb the mountain I'm on, I'll shoot you.
Problem solved. I don't care whether climate change is real anymore. If it ain't, great. If it is and your shores get flooded, drown or get shot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Repeated ignorance in the face of facts deserves ridicule.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Not in human history.
And the level sat at ~280pp for several million years without a die off in sight.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Completely wrong.
The current rate is over 333,000x faster than anything that has come before.
4. Measuring temperatures from millions of years ago to tenths of a degree with any certainty is not realistic. Yet, that's what we're doing.
Wrong.
5. The measuring devices we use, known as Stevenson Screens, have approximately 70% of them improperly cited in such a way as to produce more than 2 degrees of error making it appear hotter (see http://www.surfacestations.org...).
Still wrong.
6. We know some, perhaps a lot, of data has been fabricated (e.g. Yamal tree ring data) or manipulated in such a way as to produce the desired results (e.g. the so called hockey stick graph) and how it conveniently always gets colder in the past as data is adjusted.
Yep, wrong again.
7. We know from the ClimateGate email leaks that coordinated efforts to suppress any conflicting information/studies occurred and were successful.
Manufactured scandal.
IE, lies.
8. Many times the data and methodology of studies supporting AGW is not shared and that even occurs illegally in the refusal of FOIA requests.
Total fabrication
9. So many of the predicted side effects of AGW have not come to pass. For example, we were supposed to be seeing Katrina like hurricanes as the norm but instead the exact opposite happened and we have the longest stretch of reduced cyclonic activity since we began keeping records or the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be created by now - the UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. They now say it'll be by 2020 - only a little over 3 years from now. It's not happening. [More here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/).
Actually 2012 was a record year for tropical storm damage, especially in areas that don't typically see much of them.
Cherry picking for only hurricanes, a geographically restricted term, leaves out rather a lot of the globe.
10. Experiments allegedly proving AGW are sometimes blatantly faked ([see here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/)).
Link to nonscientists who lie about science, and get paid to do so.
11. The breakdown of the scientific method as it becomes science by consensus with massive reliance on appeals to authority and popularity as well as theories that are not falsifiable.
Myth.
12. Computer models are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, computer models are not necessarily "proof" of the future. For example, the "pause" of the last 15 years that is causing all the confusion now.
There was no confusion.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Anyone with even a bit of knowledge of the history of major migrations knows that it is often the sedentary populations who suffer the most. The Western Roman Empire fell in no small part due to the first wave of migrations from the Asian Steppe, and the Eastern Empire's collapse occurred in no small part because of later Turkic migrations from the Asian interior.
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There is only crisis for 72 hours. After that, it's a "situation".
The climate change police are getting more and more shrill over time. This decreases rather than increases their power to convince. But it was all futile anyway because you are asking people to reduce their standard of living by choice to accomplish a community goal. Even people who see the danger are loath to do that...thinking Al Gore and his planes and houses. It's the Whole Earth Catalog thing all over. "living guilt-free with our appropriate technology like Indians in the woods...free at last!". Only a tiny percentage of people will ever share in that goal meaningfully.
Nothing is going to change politically even when the oceans start encroaching cities, because the argument then will be that it is too late to fix the problem at that point. So, why bother with the stupid political activity, when we all know it's a nonstarter? Aren't there more constructive uses for their time? Instead of futile political activity, how about carbon sequestration-related work? Fund startups to do that... Plant trees. Do *something* to combat the problem you see rather than all of this wasted political activity...dare I say hot air? Solve the problem and stop trying to force others to change to 'solve' it.
But they won't, because it's not really about climate change. It's about social control and mandating lifestyles. People who apparently really don't like personal success very much because they choose goals that are unachievable.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
When you dehumanize someone for an anonymous comment on the Internet you reveal that underneath you are no better than the person who made that comment.
When you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy. Heck, buy a bunch of safe property while you're at it, great money to be made when the waters rise!
I believe in Climate Change and the resulting sea level rise. I live about 10 feet above MSL (and about 2 miles away from the water) and my region recently voted to tax ourselves to help pay for mitigations against that rise.
But instead of paying those taxes, I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions to reduce the rate of global warming and slow the sea level rise.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
Yes and I remember US Pres. Carter trying to bring the issue to the forefront, he even installed solar panels on the White House which Regan ripped down as soon as he took office. Pres. Carter stated we need to start to address it now before it gets too expensive.
Maybe something will be done when most of Florida is under water. Some very young people here may even see that start to happen and people will still be voting for deniers. Well, when Florida 1/3 it's size maybe that will solve the issue of electing the people we do in this nation.
What winter :) Last year it was a cool spring here in December, January and February with no snow. So far as of today it hardly went below freezing a couple of days and by now when I was young, we would usually have had a few light snow storms now, with maybe a permanent covering on our lawns of 2 inches (~5cm) or so.
Great for my heating bill anyway
They literally meant colder from last month. Exactly the same as the Hawaii senator holding a snow ball, or Trump saying it's colder during a snowstorm.
These people are guiding science funding at a national level. And literally don't understand seasons, much less anything at a global scale.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The guy from Bangladesh says a 1 meter sea rise will endanger 20 million people.
At the current rate of sea level rise, that will take >300 years.
People will have time to adjust.
(And the sea level has been rising for centuries, and shows NO signs of acceleration)
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
But instead of paying those taxes, I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions to reduce the rate of global warming and slow the sea level rise.
That's rather ... optimistic. Maybe that could work. Maybe it's already too late. Maybe China will talk a good game while quietly doubling their CO2 output. Maybe it's all solar activity and Antarctica is gone regardless of human activity. When it comes to important things, it's best to plan for more than the optimistic case, especially for years-long efforts.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ah, the garbage dumpster argument: pile enough garbage up, and tell the reader somewhere in the dumpster one argument might be real; you need to wade through all the garbage to find it.
I don't have time to wade through all the garbage. I'll go with the three strikes you're out approach: if your first three arguments aren't convincing, I'll stop there.
There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Not relevant.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history
Yep. And, you know what? All of those higher CO2 levels were associated with higher global temperatures! That's not evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming-- it's evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming
and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows..
Nope. Current levels are higher than it's ever been for as long as we can measure the CO2 record from ice cores, well over a million years. I think you're talking about really long ago. In that you'd be correct: carbon dioxide levels were higher before the Pleistocene. These were also, however, times when the Earth didn't have an ice cap or glaciers. So, again: this isn't evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on climate-- it's evidence for it.
We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Slightly misleading. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth-- but only in environments in which CO2 is the limiting resource, not other nutrients, water, or sunlight. In a greenhouse, where you make sure that the temperature, nutrients, and water are all optimal, sure, it's worth adding CO2. Outside, though, it's only one effect among many.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Doesn't stand out from the background... over tens of millions of years. Even so, actually, the current rate of warming is pretty exceptional. It does, however, stand out from the background over the period in which we have good measurements of both temperature and of all the other forcing factors, such a solar irradiance. So: no.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
To quote Thomas Edison:
"We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy—sun, wind, and tide. I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
And that was pre awareness of AGW*. Unfortunately for every person who dreams of breaking away from the status quo and tackling big problems there are two others who would rather stick their head in the sand and hold the rising tide doesn't drown them.
*well technically the science of the greenhouse effect was well understood at that point (co2's spectral absorption lines were known, and experiments had been done to show that co2 could act like an insulation layer to hold heat in), but no one had thought about the real world implications.
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy.
So ... your solution to global warming is that impoverished villagers in Bangladesh should be buying condos in Aspen?
Just because humans have found a way to dodge this bullet for now doesn't mean that there won't be a bill coming due eventually. Forecasts a lot of time are off, just because they got the timing wrong doesn't mean that the same outcome won't take place.
In the meantime, all the people who want to keep their heads in the sand because so-and-so was wrong about when something was going to happen doesn't mean that the eventuality won't take place.
So the refuge crisis in Syria is due to Climate change? Dang, thanks for letting me know! And we were led to believe that this was a political struggle causing massive death and destruction.
Without the sarcasm, try to stay on topic lest you continue to be perceived as a shithead Troll.
Period. It's a waste of time. Any government that tries to force standard of living reduction will be voted out of office. This is essentially what happened with Obama, and he tried to do it in a stealthy way. Imagine someone openly taking an axe to public prosperity in the interest of climate change? They'd shove knives up his ass like Quaddafi.
You have to create a totalitarian state with the full apparatus of secret police, surveillance, detention camps and summary executions to even start to go there, and the focus on climate change would impair your ability to maintain that social control. Beside which, the inherent corruption in such a state would ultimately subvert your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint.
Also, i'd rather have the climate change than the secret police, thanks.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Do you think those people are going to leave when there isn't water lapping at their doors? So the predicted timing was off. That doesn't change the outcome.
Well, someone disagrees with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First sentence:
Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 millimetres (0.10 in) and 2.9 millimetres (0.11 in) per year ± 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) since 1993[3] and has accelerated in recent years.[4]
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
TFA makes a bold assumption, that the reason for all of the political turmoil in the world is at least somehow related to climate change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet they provide none. Start with a false assumption, end with a false conclusion. The Wars in the Middle East were not started because "Climate Change", they were started over "IDEOLOGY". Those wars continue over IDEOLOGY, not bad weather or land due to climate change.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
Damn! A simple, "Go to Hell," might have sufficed.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
China is doing more than talking a good game, they have also quietly built up a renewable energy industry that dwarfs all others on earth, by an order of magnitude. They will be able to turn their energy economy on a dime, they just prefer selling to westerners for the time being. Practice on the weak; save the best for last.
The amount of money in AGW is a fraction of the amount of money oil companies pump out of the ground every week.
You are missing just how much money there is to be controlled through carbon taxes and carbon markets. Furthermore, to have a military adviser declaring that topic X is an important reason to increase military funding hardly seems surprising. Call me when the military volunteers their budgets be cut to help offset climate change because it's more effective.
It's entirely unsurprising that a military committee would recommend that a good response to ANYTHING is increasing military spending. When the military advises that defense interests are better served by redirecting their own funding to offsetting climate change that's the point you know they mean it. Otherwise you've got guys with little to no climate background declaring climate change as a good reason to give them more money, which isn't entirely convincing.
So your response is basically, wrong, wrong, really wrong, and liar liar pants on fire. At least the OP backed up his statements with information that he believes is factual.
Well you can count the Syrian, Ethioian and Eritrean refugees as Climate refugees. Mega droughts have triggered the fighting in Syria and the exodus from the Horn of Africa
**Life is too short to be serious**
There are a lot of things wrong with your arguments. Let's discuss some of them.
1. I intend to discuss your arguments. However, saying you're going to be ridiculed should be considered a form of trolling.
2. Yes, we have seen higher levels of carbon dioxide in the planetary history, some by an order of magnitude. However, the greenhouse effect is but one driver of the climate. Aerosols and volcanic activity are another. And the sun is another important driver of Earth's climate. During many of the times in which carbon dioxide levels were much higher, the sun was also significantly dimmer. The overall trend on geologic time scales has been for the sun to get brighter, meaning the Earth receives more heat from the sun. If the sun was dimmer in the past but carbon dioxide levels were higher, those factors would somewhat offset each other.
3. While we have seen significant differences in the magnitude of temperature increases, paleoclimate data generally doesn't provide the resolution to assess whether we've seen similar rates of change. It's possible that these things have occurred naturally in the past. That doesn't mean there weren't severe impacts as a result of rapid increases or decreases in temperature. Furthermore, even if such things have occurred naturally, it doesn't disprove that humans are causing rapid changes in temperature right now.
4. We are not measuring temperatures from millions of years ago with precise resolution. Absolutely not. There's even significant uncertainty about temperatures a few hundred years ago. Paleoclimatology is based on proxies for temperature, and is considered to have significant error. We can reason that some areas were significantly warmer or colder than they are presently based on what lived there, but there is limited resolution both in time and in the actual temperature. Your point is false on that matter.
5. While there are issues with properly deploying instruments, a warm or cold bias due to the location of a station or a poorly calibrated instrument would not necessarily prevent accurate measurements of trends. Even if those stations are ignored, which is reasonable, what about the other 30%?
6. Although I'm sure that data fabrication goes on in every field, that does not mean that everyone studying climate change is fabricating data. Just because one data set might have been fabricated or had significant errors in the methodology to produce it, that certainly doesn't invalidate all climate data. About the hockey stick, that wasn't fabrication of data but rather a problem with the methodology that has since been corrected. As for adjustments to the data always producing warming in recent times and cooling in the past, that's blatantly false. For example, water temperatures used to be measured by putting a bucket over the side of a boat, collecting water, and sticking a thermometer in it. Now, these readings are taken during the intake of water into the engines of ships, which produces a warm bias. This bias is corrected for by adjusting more recent temperature readings downward. Your claim is false.
7. If there were credible studies that disproved human activities causing global warming, those studies would be published. However, if the studies have serious errors with them, they shouldn't pass through the peer review process. There have been multiple reviews of the Climategate emails, but no misconduct has actually been found.
8. And yet the reason you're aware of the adjustments to data, which are done to correct for biases, is because of transparency. The data and methodology from many climate change studies are shared publicly. Can you invalidate what's been shared publicly?
9. Actually, many of the effects of climate change are projected to occur in the future, and haven't happened yet. Also, your example is totally incorrect. It's believed that water temperatures in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico will warm as a result of global warming, which is intuitive. However, it's also believed that vertical wind shear
LOL! More proof of fake news on the internet brought to you by the guardian.
I thought you guys would be pushing the scare with https://www.theguardian.com/en...
How is your article above not as fake as this "Trees might cause air pollution on city streets" to drive a wedge to help us decide to cut down all the trees on the planet.
Is this greenpeace's reply to the inconvenient news that the world has gotten 14% greener? http://www.spectator.co.uk/201... -- indeed, why does no one want to know? And why go all denier on good news?
"2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities."
We have seen vastly higher?
When? Some time before 400,000 years ago?
The refugee crisis you refer to is actually the second Syrian refugee crisis.
The first refugee was an internal displacement of 1.5 million people (out of a population of 20 million) over the period 2007-2011 during crops failed due to unprecedented drought. Over two hundred villages were completely depopulated, and 40% of Syria's agricultural workforce was lost. Domestic wheat production crashed, and prices skyrocketed as it was replaced by imports.
So you had over a million hungry, unemployed displaced people crowded into cities, when a bad harvest in Russia caused a spike in global wheat prices. Check out the graph in this link labelled "World Monthly Grains Price Index" and note the massive upswing in prices in 2010 - 2011. There was a similar price spike in 2007, but back then Syria produced essentially all the wheat it consumed. In 2010 Syria only produced 80% of what it needed, resulting in underconsumption -- aka "starvation". You can check out the figures here.
Finally note that the so-called "Day of Rage" which critically destabilized the regime took place on March 15, 2011. The timing was not coincidental.
Now you can talk to me about "political struggle" in Syria. The roots of that struggle are of course decades old. But the effects were exacerbated by the worst drought in 900 years.
Without the sarcasm, try to stay on topic lest you continue to be perceived as a shithead Troll.
I have stayed on topic. Shithead troll I guess is a matter of perspective. Syria is exactly the kind of scenario security planners are worried about. And one reason they are worried is that many in the public literally find the idea of climate-driven refugees unimaginable. People who've been paying attention find it all too easy to imagine.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's great but you didn't provide any references to support your beliefs in Global Warming. CO2 is up... where is all the warming?
China is incredibly vulnerable to overall sea level rises, considering that large portions of its population live in low-lying areas. I know China is the anti-emission control crowd's favorite bogeyman, but countries like China and India are at great risk in multiple ways if even the more moderate models for the latter half of this century come to fruition.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In reality, physicists studying CO2 at the end of 19th century understood its solar absorption properties and hypothesized that if CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere, that it could lead to greater heating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is absolutely nothing controversial from a scientific perspective about even fractional increases in CO2 in the atmosphere causing increased trapping of energy in the lower atmosphere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well you can count the Syrian...refugees as Climate refugees
Isis is now part of the climate? Was Stalin a snowstorm and Pol Pot a typhoon?
Because moving isn't free? Because jobs aren't guaranteed? Because people don't have a sick ass savings account to make the transition? Because they don't know where would be a good place to settle and can't afford to roam for years on end? Because the consequences of climate change will be much more dire than slightly warmer, less snow, and higher tides (ocean acidification and the collapse of ocean ecology, aiding the spread of tropical diseases, desyncing migration and plant blooming cycles, amplifying extremes in weather)?
So yeah, you fuck face, it's not hypocritical for them to stay where they are while pushing for clean energy, lowering meat consumption, and more efficient housing and appliances.
Nope. Plain old wars and good old fashioned political corruption did that.
The "drought caused the Syrian civil war" theory is, frankly, crap. It was based off of one paper, which built a big statistical mountain off of a molehill. They exaggerated the number of people affected by the drought, and failed to show any sort of cause and effect. For that matter, the ACTUAL cause of the migration was a financial - subsidies for diesel and fertilizers were cut.
The civil war in Syria, by the way, started two years AFTER the drought ended. If it was caused by the drought, it seems like the events would have been closer together.
Gee. I wonder if anything might drastically alter that rate when certain areas like Greenland pass some arbitrary point. Oh, lets just choose, I dunno, an average low of 33 degrees F. Nah, you're right. It will probably continue like clockwork.
It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. What matters is what actually happens. A meter or less by 2100 seems likely, and someone who's living 2m above sea level has plenty of time to move.
I live something like 180 or 190 meters above sea level, personally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Your response is to say "lies!" and "wrong!" over and over despite the majority of those points being 100% proven and factual. You play on the same logical fallacies I detailed and literally simply deny things. You're a zealot.
Look, I don't think you'll ever be convinced of anything other than what is obviously a very dearly held belief, essentially a religion. You're like those flat earthers.
Article in the telegraph today saying studies showing there hasn't been a noticeable change in ice at the Antarctic in100 years but, I guess you're right. The science is settled. No arguing allowed.
If Wheat was the problem, the US would be dropping food bags on the populace instead of TONS OF WEAPONS.
You'd need a time machine capable of sending three million tons of wheat six years into the past.
As to why we didn't do it that the time, you may recall we had a financial crisis to deal with. Very few Americans were paying attention to what at the time was an internal crisis in Syria, and if they had they wouldn't be interested in spending a billion dollars addressing it ($350/ton * 3 million ton shortfall).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Title says "military" but article cites anonymous "military experts". What, pray tell, is a military expert?
1. This certainly isn't an official statement from any country's military.
2. The sources are anonymous. As such, they have no credibility.
You do know there decades of scientific fact about actual rising seas, right?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ [colorado.edu]
Yes, sea level has been rising for centuries. It is about 3mm/year, so for Bangledesh to have a meter of rise, it will be 300 years.
So there is time for people to move or adapt.
And, the link you show demonstrates NO acceleration of sea level rise. That only exists in speculative computer models with dodgy feedbacks and unrealistic assumptions on the climate sensitivity.
They're never called on their (many) mistakes, shitty science and deplorable conduct towards climate realists. Too sexay of a story for the media to endlessly, unquestioningly repeat. There's too much government money involved and the climate is being used as a political weapon. Unlimited taxpayer funds buys tons of PR. Biggest. Scam. Ever.
Oh yea, wikipedia, the ultimate source of truth.
Look at the data from http://sealevel.colorado.edu.
No acceleration. And in that same Wiki article, do you see the post-glacial sealevel rise graph covering thousands of years?
That paper referenced [4] is probably another set of adjustments like the warming alarmists do to the temperature records, cooling the past and adding to recent data, to create trends.
See:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
and many other similar exposures of their adjustments .
If the military sees climate change as a military problem then I'd like to see the military try to solve the problem. Perhaps the military could build more nuclear powered warships to replace oil burning ones. Aircraft carriers and submarines have been nuclear powered for a long time, use that technology in other ships, like destroyers and amphibious assault ships. There has been so much research in synthesizing fuel for aircraft, because kerosene is awesome fuel for aircraft and by synthesizing the fuel from carbon in the air and water the carbon loop is closed. Synthesized fuel not only closes the carbon loop but also separates the national economy from relying on oil supplies from hostile and/or unstable nations. Nuclear power is great, and the military should certainly invest in it, but also wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy projects could come from military funding and research.
It turns out that the US military has been trying to do this for a very long time.
I've seen so many people in the energy research industry, and people in the military, that would love to invest in energy alternatives so that we would not have to rely on fossil fuels as much as we have. The largest obstacle to this, ironically, is the US Department of Energy.
The US Navy wants more nuclear powered ships. They are able to operate for much longer periods of time before needed resupply, which is a huge tactical advantage. Given the large energy density of nuclear power it is also possible to have more weapons, and more powerful weapons, than an oil fired ship would be able to support. Directed energy weapons are really only viable on a nuclear powered vessel. But the Navy cannot build nuclear reactors without some support from the DOE, and certainly without support from Congress.
The US Navy has been funding research in synthesizing fuels and in fusion power reactors. The problem is that if the funding reaches a certain monetary level then the DOE comes along, declares it within their authority, takes over the project, and... kills it. The DOE is interested in tokamak fusion, and anything that might compete with it makes them look bad, so they simply declare any fusion reactor that is not a tokamak "non-viable" and keeps betting on the same horse that may never finish the race.
The US Navy has also been funding research in synthetic fuels, because a nuclear powered vessel that can fuel the aircraft that it carries is very advantageous. This technology would also be quite valuable for land based operations, and civilian vehicles. But this is a threat to the DOE research in electric vehicles so they will try to kill it if they can. The Navy though has been very protective of this technology and has been doing this research for a very long time now. If given proper funding then we could see this much sooner.
The US DOE has been very hostile to nuclear power, synthetic fuels, among other technologies that might actually solve this climate change problem. This is assuming the problem even exists, I'm not a believer in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming issue largely because of the very hostile attitude the DOE has had on so many possible solutions to the problem. If the CAGW crowd want to convince me that it is a real problem then I want to see real solutions be given a chance. If the federal government, through the DOE, keeps killing these alternatives to fossil fuels then I cannot be convinced that the federal government truly sees CAGW as a problem.
Oddly enough it might take a Trump administration, which is not on the CAGW bandwagon, to solve this problem of global warming. Trump himself and the GOP have stated that nuclear power should be developed. The Obama administration and the Democrats are openly hostile to nuclear power. Trump and the GOP are supportive of the military and just might give them the nuclear powered ships they've asked for. As well as more solar panels for forward operating bases. The "Drill, Baby, drill" attitude might turn a lot of pe
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look.
So far nobody has posted any links to CAGW proof, but my post has been moderated "Flamebait" and "Overrated". Folks, if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW, that's not the optimal strategy.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Then there's the fact that the cost of addressing climate change is insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it.
Attempting to simplify the crises in Syria by pointing at climate change seriously under states all other factors. Hell, one of your own links (the usda one) clearly shows that Syria has been able to meet its needs IF allowed via imports and even discusses the fact that Syria manages this particular food stuff as a critical element of their sovereignty.
Trying to claim that sustained droughts over a period of years (2007-2011) when only 1 of those years shows a MAJOR fall in production vs traditional internal production doesn't even come close to explaining the refugee crisis. Hell, the USDA article makes it clear that the government (you know that 'bad regime' that we're trying to get rid of) has purposely paid higher than market prices to producers & kept pricing of bread stuffs low (e.g. 'price controls') in order to ensure domestic tranquillity. Furthermore the USDA article points out that Syria maintains a policy of ensuring growth or import of between 3 & 4 million tonnes in order to have at least '1 year supply' of wheat. Which probably explains why they important almost 1 million metric tonnes in 2009 over the consumption needs, probably to resupply their reserves. So just because production declined significantly in 1 year or imports didn't always meet a given years consumption doesn't mean that there wasn't sufficient reserves to feed their own people during that period of time.
Now, given the economic sanctions imposed since 2010 that have effectively decimated their economy...now THAT can cause a major crises, see this article about how sanctions causing oil & wheat prices to skyrocket & impact domestic wheat production, https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28/u-s-sanctions-are-punishing-ordinary-syrians-and-crippling-aid-work-u-n-report-reveals/.
This from e-mails & reports from the UN, not someone particularly keen on blaming themselves.
O, and throw on top of that that world-wide wheat production has sky-rocketed since 2006 by over an extra 120 million metric tonnes (a 20% increase over 10 years) world wide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics) so at least in theory if sanctions against Syria didn't exist they'd not only be able to feed themselves rather easily they'd likely be back up to normal production levels.
Now, I don't doubt that climate change MAY have an impact on what I'll call 'living patterns', e.g. where people will move to in order to avoid effects of climate change induced weather but the Syrian situation is hardly a good example of this. And the generals pointing at revolutions against dictatorial regimes & terrorism as examples doesn't cut it either.
Nothing like an article about climate change to bring all the loonies out.
One meter rise in sea level in our lifetime? Really? I was born at night, but not last night.
Congratulations, you're now no better, or possibly worse.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
It used to be "what happened to that ice age we were going to have", then it was "sun spots" or "volcanoes". The chickens are getting sore and would like to lay down for a while.
I'm glad you "realists" have such great WiFi out in the Maldives. That's where you've all gone to, right, since beachfront property is so cheap these days? Just make sure you stay there.
If your Muslim doctors and nurses treated you well until your dying breath, it's a fair question to ask why you died? Terrorists in the ER...
Key word being "military". The U.S. military is the single largest user of carbon fuels. The U.S. military gets most of it's funding to ensure the world's gas station (the Middle East) keeps pumping oil.
So, yeah, you might want to pay attention if even the Pentagon is saying climate change is going to have serious consequences. It's like Philip Morris talking about the cancerous substances in tobacco - if even they are admitting it's a problem, why are you continuing to deny it?
Cue the Global Warming Deniers, Trumpster Divers, Koch-paid commenters and other loons.
Meanwhile, organizations like the US military have to look squarely at the reality of Climate Change and try to protect the country from its consequences...despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel lobbyists and their drooling, willfully ignorant dupes.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You moron, they referred to global land temperatures. Is it winter everywhere? Stupid fuck.
Building a wall and having the ocean pay for it is called tidal power (and the wall is a tidal barrage, a type of dam)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Attempting to simplify the crises in Syria by pointing at climate change seriously under states all other factors. Hell, one of your own links (the usda one) clearly shows that Syria has been able to meet its needs IF allowed via imports
The USDA link shows no such thing; it shows Syria eating up its reserves as it fails to import enough wheat to make up the shortfall. Yes, Assad underwrote the price of bread, but there wasn't enough subsidized bread to meet demand, forcing people to buy non-subsidized bread which increased in price six-fold. The net bread expenditure went up by 20% in a country where many people spend half their income on food.
I'm not a reductionist; situations like this have multiple important factors. The Assad/Islamist thing had been simmering for decades -- generations really. Had that situation been different, the climate shock might not have destabilized the country. In point of fact bread prices were an issue throughout the Middle East and a major factor in the Arab Spring. Syria was arguably better positioned than most other Arab countries, but the stress of having 5% of your population displaced on top of the deep and old fault lines broke the country apart.
This is precisely how climate shock is going to work. It won't be like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water; it'll be formerly rare occurrences happening more frequently and stressing vulnerable populations. Take sea level rise; cities won't drown slpowly, but what was once a hundred year flood will become twenty year flood. That will stress coastal cities, and the results depend on how stable and wealthy a particular city is.
For example were sea level to rise almost a meter by 2100 (as is now within the scope of mainstream positions), the very wealthy coastal city I live in would go the Venice route and build a tidal barrier, which would conservatively cost at least ten billion dollars. Chittagong Bengladesh, however, will be screwed. My city has twice the GDP of Bengladesh as a whole even though it has 3% of the population.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If Wheat was the problem, the US would be dropping food bags on the populace instead of TONS OF WEAPONS. GUNS DO NOT GROW OR WATER CROPS YOU FUCKING MORON!
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that the crisis must not be driven by a non-political cause because if it were the US would have solved it? Or, to put it another way, your're arguing that the US government is so perfectly effective at always addressing the root causes of problems in a timely manner, that the government's failure to address this one means it's not the root cause?
Dude, you must know a different US government than I do. The one I know occasionally does the right thing at the right time, but it's mostly by accident.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So far nobody has posted any links to CAGW proof, but my post has been moderated "Flamebait" and "Overrated". Folks, if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW, that's not the optimal strategy.
They aren't trying to prove CAGW because there IS no proof.
They are simply trying to censor, shout-down, and otherwise silence opposing views. It's the "Scientific Method 2.0". Just scream & shout-down opposing views until society conforms to your ideology/religion while randomly interjecting science-y sounding jargon.
People who are skeptical of CAGW are automatically redneck Luddite bigots clinging to their bibles and guns and anything they say is wrong and a lie anyways, so everyone but those who agree with us can be ignored.
https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4
they say a rising tide lifts all boats. is this actually what they meant?
So they're going the climate angle for massive refugees. Damn globalists, their days are numbered.
So I buy a house in higher ground , later I have to defend it with my life when migrants overrun my territory. They don't care for my life, or that I planned for disaster, they want their "human rights" to get free lodging and I become the villain saying get off my lawn.
No, what other people do *is* my business, because I prefer to avoid a scenario where what they do endangers my life, and where defense of my own human rights endangers theirs.
Neal Stephenson imagined it and made it part of "Snow Crash".
Don't blame the scientists for some shit said by a pimply political intern somewhere that then ended up in a speech.
For some reason this is the first I've ever heard of it.
What is the point of debunking some obscure lie somewhere and pretending that the lie is mainstream? It just seems like a mindless way to try to start a fight to me.
The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency.
This sort of donkey shit is part of the reason why the anti-climate change movement has so much steam behind it. Even blaming stuff like Hurricane Katrina on climate change was pretty bad, but this? It shouldn't be mentioned. It's senselessly injecting tangential politics into an already senselessly politicized issue. I'm sure someone has a very clever conjecture-heavy explanation for these claims, but I highly, highly, highly doubt that global warming was remotely significant in the genesis of any of those things.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Syria didn't suddenly erupt in chaos because the banana harvest was a bit low this year.
And where is your evidence for that claim?
You're a funny guy!
Oh, wait...you were serious?
How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?
You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.
We're still waiting.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW,
Actually, nobody gives a flying fuck what an idiot like you thinks.
Typical Leftist response. Down-mod but don't refute. Because facts are stubborn things and are hard to refute.
That's fine, I've got enough karma to burn to raise global temps by 10C by New Years!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
All what he said was cited and cited over and over and over. Just go to real climate science FFS. But you guy keep repeating the same lie, and every time ask for the thankless job of citation. Just to ignore it again in the next story. Personally I stopped caring. I am old enough that the effect will be minimal on my life, and I have no children. So I egoistically don't care anymore. Go ahead continue pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and go ahead continue ignoring the very fucking simple science about the greenhouse effect (heck that effect was long known, but apparentely for idiot like you climate change denier , having a higher CO2 ppm in the atmosphere does not warm it, go figure). I'll be long dead when the worst effect will start to be felt. And go all fuck yourself *bows*.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
sorry dude, Americans can't wear sweaters; it's just too much to ask. The freedom to squander freedom and resources is simply too important. Our society deserves to die, preferably the slow exhausting death we are about to witness, with each and last breath of every generation henceforth resigned to the fact they left this place worse, their children in a deeper state hopelessness.
So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look.
So far nobody has posted any links to CAGW proof....
I guess part of the problem is in what you consider to be proof.
This probably doesn't count, and if that didn't then almost certainly this won't either.
However, perhaps once you've read them you could let us know what their failures are, as specifically as you can, and what more you'd require for them to be considered 'proof'.
Wait. Wait. Slashdot once had credibility?
All models are wrong. Do you have a better one?
Keep in mind these models are not statistical analyses of the dataset, they are physical models, which are true because of the laws of physics. The models may be inaccurate, but they can't be wrong, because that would mean that some fundamental part of physics would be wrong. And if you want to poke holes in the laws of physics, you need some pretty strong empirical evidence to do so.
The amount of modeling you need to do to see that a higher partial pressure of CO2 results in warming is minimal. It's a direct result of the properties of the gas, as established by Tyndall in 1860, and Arrhenius was able to hand-calculate a fairly accurate estimate of the warming for a doubling of CO2 in 1896. We actually did have decades where the AGW theory was scientifically controversial, including much of the early 20th Century. I am not sure how you imagine that decades of physical research and unimaginable increases in computing ability would result in worse models. Simple models are also not necessarily less useful than more complex ones, either, depending on what the exact question you want to know is.
Want to know how much of the Earth's global average temperature is due to atmospheric warming? You just need a one-dimensional model, it's just the difference between the blackbody temperature and the observed temperature. Want to know what the effective radiating height is for the atmosphere for a given temperature? Two dimensional model. If you want to know what happens to the Earth as a result of doubling CO2, that question is pretty complex, especially since it needs to model human behavior. The question of "What happens to a column of air of a given composition when the partial pressure of CO2 doubles?" is much, much easier to solve. Radiative transfer equations also describe extraterrestrial atmospheres well, including the atmospheres of Venus, Jupiter, and the Sun.
Which brings us back to you. Yes, you, the one with a bone to pick with physics. The global climate models are not your problem. Your problem is that it requires very little sophistication to start seeing evidence of AGW. We don't need to model the whole Earth and everything in it, nor even the whole atmosphere. In order for these basic models to be wrong, the observations must also be wrong, so ultimately you just need one single fact in your favor to lay waste to the entire theory of AGW, and potentially all atmospheric and radiative physics. You need either a change in the physical properties of CO2, a new way for Earth to transfer heat energy to space, or a hidden decrease in solar output. Personally, I try not to get in arguments with the consensus view of reality, especially with the people whose job is to measure that reality to extremes of precision, and especially not after a hundred or so years of research into the issue. But if that makes sense to you, I applaud your courage, and await the results of your paper.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?
So if I'm left: pro health insurance, pro unions etc. ... what responses do you expect from me if the topic e.g. is global warming or fund increase for the navy etc.?
I don't get it.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
Sorry, the US way of labeling opinions/political stances/ideas/arguments seems extremely NAZI to me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In same countries ... that counts for EU e.g. your funding is determined by the university you are researching at.
There is no magical funding because you "make press".
Perhaps you should either reconsider your IDEA how funding works, or if the funding in your country in fact is such retarded: change the way how science is funded?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem is: there is no hell.
So letting him die while suffering is the closest thing to hell imaginable he will experience.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
you may be correct or not ... but parent post has citations. Statements of like "wrong" "wrong" "still wrong" "manufactured scandal...lies" "total fabrication" are not ...compelling... arguments against verifiable citations.
If you are expert or have have credible knowledge to share, please present it in a civil and credible manner (links to sources, please) otherwise your statemets do not seem useful in promotion of your position.
Thank you for considering this opinion.
Alpha Charlie
Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?
In this context it refers to the typical response to inconvenient facts by those who are committed US Leftists of attempting to shout-down, censor, and/or silence those expressing them, a 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic commonly employed by those on the US political Left.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
I ask the same question regarding being on the 'Right'. One need only scroll through responses to my past posts to see the mirror-image labeling and pigeon-holing being employed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You didn't provide to refute. Just a series of non sequiturs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which is absurd as Shackleton and the like could only observe sea ice. You may note that they didn't have satellites or permanent monitoring stations a century ago.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
I see this happening within the USA midwest to southwest states. Who wants to live where the daytime temperature rises above that of the human body, and where water evaporation at that temperature leaves the land parched and nearly barren. Of couse, the side effects are denied too, you know the ones, hurricanes and tornadoes and dry heat windstorms.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
research dollars are handed out?
Is this some kind of turncoat argument? Create a bigger boogieman called Big Government to let that smaller boogieman Big Oil to hide behind of.
Hey, your ignorance is showing. First fool errand - who are these 93% of the scientists that agree man is causing GW. I dare you to identify them. You can't, they're anonymous - i.e. it's bullshit.
Here is a talk by a real scientist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iggJN4Etw .
He'll explain the scientific method, and so on. You can look up what he says. Watch it and I expect you'll get upset when you realize how you've been lied to.
In the majority of land area, yes it is.
Since you're such an expert AC, perhaps you could tell me the percentage of land that is in winter right now?
I'll give you a hint. It's 68%.
Thus, land temps in the northern hemisphere are overweighted for the whole world.
And I'm the stupid fuck...lol.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
What is the point of debunking some obscure lie somewhere and pretending that the lie is mainstream?
Did you miss the part about the UN publishing this? According to the provided link, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University both claimed this. It wasn't exactly obscure at the time; it was treated as news and reported upon. I remember this, and I don't remember any prominent climate change scientists saying anything against it (not even "that 5-year timetable might be a bit premature"). After it failed to come true, it became non-news and was put in the memory hole.
So now we are being warned of the same thing again, only this time instead of a 5-year timetable we have a much more vague timetable. We should worry about a refugee crisis, someday, and it will be really bad so we should spend a whole lot of money now.
Do you really think it is hard to understand why someone might mention that this exact problem has been warned about and didn't come true?
If your next argument is "well the guy was just mistaken about the timetable, all the predictions will come true, just later than he said" then my next question is "please show me the data you used to figure that out."
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do ... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Probably for the same reason I had never heard of it. It's obvious bullshit and was ignored.
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do ... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country ...
I believe that more speech is always the solution. Let ideas compete equally out in the open without censor regardless of how revolting some may find some speech. After all, it is only unpopular opinions that need protecting. Nobody tries to suppress speech they agree with.
If one's ideas and speech can only gain acceptance by silencing/suppressing others' ideas and speech, then one should re-examine and re-evaluate their own ideas and speech, for that is where the problem lies.
If what you say is true then carry on, Sir, whether we may agree or not. If I may ask a favor, please have a heart-to-heart with the US Left. Sad to say, they are currently not only harming themselves but the US as well with the tactics I outlined above, which are just a fraction of the things they discredit themselves with without help of opposition.
Hell, I really don't want either faction to gain too much power. That leads to tyranny. However, the US Left has swung the pendulum quite a ways Left in the US and I fear the counter-swing, of which Trump could be just the beginning. That the pendulum has swung so far Left in the US (by US standards) is what's driven extreme political views, opinions, and policies from both sides.
A far-Right fascist authoritarian regime and a far-Left socialist authoritarian regime are nearly indistinguishable from the general populations' viewpoint.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Hillary and Obama policies have created 65 million refugees the largest in history. Now climate change liberals want to tell us climate change will create refugees. How ironic. The refugee lovers complaining about refugees. You made 65 million of them. What do you care about refugees anyway? What a load. Load upon load of lies and crap. Cagw doesn't exist. All the consequences ever predicted never happen. There is no sea level rise. 30,000 km more coastlines In the last 30 years than before. Less extreme storms than ever. Nothing cagw people say has ever happened. The last year heat wave was El Niño. We have gotten them before and will get them again just as we're getting a monster La Niña now. The fastest decline in temperatures ever recorded. Did they say that? Did they predict that? I did. Totally crap climate science is drivel but we are expected to beleive nonexistent coastline decline is supposed to cause things when nothing they've ever predicted before has come true. Nothing. No ice free Arctic by 2000. No polar bears extinction. No extreme hurricanes. No extreme anything. It's crap science for morons.
The democrats crashed the economy before they even got into office so some nukes didn't get funding?
How stupid do you think we all are here?
Did you come to this site today just to troll?
There is a massive shift of the goalposts between "refused by government" and "decided not to go ahead due to lack of funding".
Show me one that was refused instead of jumping on a thread with a blatant goalpost shift because you can't find something that fits.
I don't have anything in this fight but all this "nukes would be great if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their dog" dishonest shit really gets me. If Westinghouse wasn't pushing 1970s dinosaurs painted green a bank might actually put up some money.
I was rather more hoping for a summary than a direct link to the 2007 report.
If I were a global warming scientist, I would already have read through those hundreds of pages. As a non-scientist, with things I need to do, I somewhat rely on news stories, like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
And then I read through the PDFs at this site:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
The tone is rather tendentious (especially the second PDF) but I find the arguments compelling. As I understand it, the CAGW theory is that feedbacks will cause the warming to "run away" precipitously once we reach a cruical tipping point, but the PDFs have graphs showing the Earth once had a significantly higher CO2 concentration than currently without turning into another Venus. The annual news stories about "the previous year was the warmest on record" don't seem to mention error bars, and when I tracked some down I was astonished to see that the margin for the "warmest" claim was a small fraction of the uncertainty interval. And in my original post, now modded down to 0 score, I provided the link to an article with graphs comparing the predicted temperature increases with what actually were recorded.
I have seen proposals for a carbon tax that was intended to take trillions of dollars out of the economy. (The authors of the proposal viewed this as a feature: trillions of tax dollars of additional revenue for the US government! I personally don't think you can get something for nothing, so I worry about the harm that would occur if that level of tax was levied.) I think that this level of tax should require a high level of confidence, and I personally am not at that level yet.
Thank you for responding politely. You haven't convinced me and I likely haven't convinced you, but I hope you at least believe that I'm genuinely skeptical and not just trolling or trying to flame people about this.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
typo.
i meant 2016, not 2012.
my kingdom for an edit button
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions
That is an unfounded assumption that moving towards more renewable energy is going to make goods and services cost more.
Causes for terrorism: climate change, ... economic depravation, ...western military occupation, ...Israel, ... western entertainment, ... scantily dressed models, ..
As much as I believe global warming is a crisis, simply modern middle-eastern culture, the rapes, the terrorism has everything to do with Islam and the ideas it presents, and how muslims are forced to 'accept' them. I live in Germany and rape and terrorism is now an 'issue'. The cause isn't the change in temperature.