Climate Change may not be a bad our best brains feared.

[Kawasicki]

Ali G said:

Kawasicki said:

Coolbanana said:

we are affected by relatively minute adjustments

Is that why we didn't make it through the truly gigantic temperature swings in the past? Or why today humans can only live in certain climates?

We are affected by mathematical models of a chaotic system which are susceptible to pseudo-random outcomes depending upon minute variations of starting conditions.

Yeah, that too. Terrifying stuff, it's chaos!

[Ali G]

Chimps + typewriters = climate/energy policy

[Kawasicki]

Ali G said:

Chimps + typewriters = climate/energy policy

It's worse than that. The chimps fingers are getting shorter due to climate change, so they have increased trouble typing. Not only that, but the increased humidity due to climate change causes the lubricant in the linkages of the typewriters to emulsify, seriously degrading the performance.

It's Gaia's revenge. Soon we'll be all dead.

[Ali G]

The prehensile tail may become a prerequisite for those afflicted with the catastrophic and very sad demise of prestidigitation abilities.

Go Gibbon!

[Kawasicki]

THE


END


IS


NEAR

[DapperDanMan]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

It's amazing.

When climate scientists say things could be bad, we get endless threads about how they're all corrupt and the data is fraudulent and it's all an attempt by the UN to raise taxes or impose communism or whatever. Great lengths are sought to dig up anything that might paint climate science as anything other than utterly perfect, and there are grand conspiracy theories about how all the world's scientists are keeping quiet about it because they live in fear of... I dunno really.

But at the merest sniff from those same climate scientists saying it might not be as bad as thought, those critics are - all of a sudden - absolutely fine with them. They're now more than happy to accept what those corrupt, fraudulent climate scientists are saying without question (and often without actually reading the science itself).

You have to make up your mind whether you trust these scientists or not. You either accept the science or you don't. You can't choose to accept it only when it fits your preconceptions; that's not how it works.

You can accept AGW and reject CAGW durbs. This paper is a less likely to get CAGW paper. Only in your mind does it have to be black or white.

Kind of of wishful thinking though isn't it.

Climate change is happening but it isn't our fault so there is nothing to be done

[LHRFlightman]

Smiler. said:

Pesty said:

The battle isn't iver yet...........

There's still a row going on down in Slough.

[Einion Yrth]

DapperDanMan said:

Kind of of wishful thinking though isn't it.

Climate change is happening but it isn't our fault so there is nothing to be done

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

[deeps]

Einion Yrth said:

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

I was actually asked the other day if I believed in climate change.

My reply was that the question did not make sense. There is no alternative to climate change, a constant climate is not possible, so the only possible answer is yes, it is not a matter for belief, it's a fact. Now would they like to rephrase the question?

It is alarming how the media, politicians and celebrities, more than ever are simply and incorrectly referring to MMGW as climate change, when the former is what we are really talking about and is an unproven theory based around anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, and the latter is a natural occurrence on a planet with an atmosphere.

How do they get away with it? I recently heard Mark Zuckerberg making a speech in which he stated "wouldn't it be great if we could stop the climate from changing"!

Wow, I guess he's a powerful man, but to stop the climate from changing for the first time in 4.5 billion years, that is some quest!

[kerplunk]

Einion Yrth said:

DapperDanMan said:

Kind of of wishful thinking though isn't it.

Climate change is happening but it isn't our fault so there is nothing to be done

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

We are dealing with it - see paris agreement etc.

[kerplunk]

deeps said:

Einion Yrth said:

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

I was actually asked the other day if I believed in climate change.

My reply was that the question did not make sense. There is no alternative to climate change, a constant climate is not possible, so the only possible answer is yes, it is not a matter for belief, it's a fact. Now would they like to rephrase the question?

It is alarming how the media, politicians and celebrities, more than ever are simply and incorrectly referring to MMGW as climate change, when the former is what we are really talking about and is an unproven theory based around anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, and the latter is a natural occurrence on a planet with an atmosphere.

How do they get away with it? I recently heard Mark Zuckerberg making a speech in which he stated "wouldn't it be great if we could stop the climate from changing"!

Wow, I guess he's a powerful man, but to stop the climate from changing for the first time in 4.5 billion years, that is some quest!

We could control global temps quite easily if we were minded to. Inject aerosols into the atmosphere to cool it, pump out CFCs to warm it - all quite within our grasp. The side effects might not be very desirable but no theoretical barriers.

[grumbledoak]

kerplunk said:

We could control global temps quite easily if we were minded to. Inject aerosols into the atmosphere to cool it, pump out CFCs to warm it - all quite within our grasp. The side effects might not be very desirable but no theoretical barriers.

This sort of thinking is very worrying. It is total echo-chamber rubbish. This climate of unscientific hysteria in some quarters giving rise to suggestions of untestable actions that could be way more devastating that anything we are provably doing via our own CO2 emissions.

But once you've disposed of theoretical barriers like "evidence" and "scientific method" in your quest for power, why would you ever re-introduce them?

[Colonial]

grumbledoak said:

This sort of thinking is very worrying. It is total echo-chamber rubbish. This climate of unscientific hysteria in some quarters giving rise to suggestions of untestable actions that could be way more devastating that anything we are provably doing via our own CO2 emissions.

But once you've disposed of theoretical barriers like "evidence" and "scientific method" in your quest for power, why would you ever re-introduce them?

Errr. He wasn't suggesting it was a good idea. Just that it was theoretically possible.

So clamber down off that high horse and relax.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

That's not all the raw data is it Jinx.

Who knows what it is since you neglected to provide its origin (looks like it's from the Jo Nova blog from the URL).

Source:BOM

Yes, I can read what it says on the graph.

However, since it's not difficult to make up a graph and post it on the internet, you should always check the origin of the graph before giving it any regard.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 23 September 08:07

[DapperDanMan]

Einion Yrth said:

DapperDanMan said:

Kind of of wishful thinking though isn't it.

Climate change is happening but it isn't our fault so there is nothing to be done

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

It is all in the rate.

[Oilchange]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

That's not all the raw data is it Jinx.

Who knows what it is since you neglected to provide its origin (looks like it's from the Jo Nova blog from the URL).

Source:BOM

Yes, I can read what it says on the graph.

However, since it's not difficult to make up a graph and post it on the internet, you should always check the origin of the graph before giving it any regard.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 23 September 08:07

That graph is hilarious.
All it says to me is 'Damn! The trend isn't going the right way. I'd better make it slope up, that'll keep the bosses happy'

nb. They should've replaced 'homogenisation' with '$incentivisation'

[King Herald]

Disco Infiltrator said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

So for clarity - you do or don't believe it exists ?

No, I think it's an overblown load of nonsense.

I always ask the doom mongers to explain, in simple terms, how the planet came out of the last few ice ages, without we motorists to warm the place up.

Perchance there is some sort of natural system, a cycle, that occurs without our help???

Edited by King Herald on Saturday 23 September 12:37

[Kawasicki]

DapperDanMan said:

Einion Yrth said:

DapperDanMan said:

Kind of of wishful thinking though isn't it.

Climate change is happening but it isn't our fault so there is nothing to be done

Climate change has been happening for four and a half billion years; for the what, quarter of a million or so, years that hom sap has been around we've dealt with it reasonably well. How about we just keep dealing with it?

It is all in the rate.

And the rate of change now is nothing remarkable. If you wanted to be dramatic you could say we live in an unusually warm, stable period.

[kerplunk]

Colonial said:

grumbledoak said:

This sort of thinking is very worrying. It is total echo-chamber rubbish. This climate of unscientific hysteria in some quarters giving rise to suggestions of untestable actions that could be way more devastating that anything we are provably doing via our own CO2 emissions.

But once you've disposed of theoretical barriers like "evidence" and "scientific method" in your quest for power, why would you ever re-introduce them?

Errr. He wasn't suggesting it was a good idea. Just that it was theoretically possible.

So clamber down off that high horse and relax.

Indeed, but an interesting bit of risk aversion to the 'untested and potentially devastating' effects of messing about with the atmosphere by mr grumledoak there wasn't it.

[kerplunk]

King Herald said:

Disco Infiltrator said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

So for clarity - you do or don't believe it exists ?

No, I think it's an overblown load of nonsense.

I always ask the doom mangers to explain, in simple terms, how the planet came out of the last few ice ages, without we motorists to warm the place up.

Perchance there is some sort of natural system, a cycle, that occurs without our help???

It appears to be a case of a quite subtle forcing from cyclic shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun amplified by feedbacks from increasing greenhouse gases and reductions in ice cover (albedo) leading to large-scale climate changes.