U.N. climate report shows civilization is at stake if we don’t act now

There are plenty of examples of well meaning people that introduce new species to an area seeking to improve things. Rats were accidentally introduced to Hawaii, so to solve the problem mongooses were deliberately introduced to control the rats. They didn't eat rats, they liked tropical birds. The unique native species were wiped out. There are also many examples where people either accidentally introduced new diseases or fungi that were lethal to local plants and animals. Europeans brought "exotic" North American grape vines back to Europe. They are very resistant to the phyloxora parasite which attacks the roots of the vine. The European grapes were not. It nearly wiped out the wine industry until vintners learned to plant American grapes and graft European shoots onto them. To this day, when you drink a French Cab, it almost certainly was grown on American root stock. Then the Aussies imported rabbits. It was kind of comical but on Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean) donkeys and chickens run wild. Not exactly native species. American bat species have been devastated by foreign diseases, as well as Central American amphibians. It would not surprise me if the loss of honey bees was similarly caused by some fungus or disease not native to the Americas.

 

How the US is doing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/w...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

 

AGW scientist have had multiple failed predictions that we have discussed before. Your standard asnswer is to say that was just one scientist not representative of the body as a whole. Then you go on to point out random predictions by one scientist that came true and claim that does represent the body as a whole. It's e very selective and deceitful game you play.

 

So far you've shown me one failed prediction from an IPCC report. It's a prediction that the IPCC owned up to and corrected.

I wonder how many denier predictions have failed? Did any of them own up to their mistakes?

Which prediction have I presented that came from one guy that is not widely accepted by the scientific consensus?

 

It was a huge prediction meant to scare the public and they didn't correct it they said oh woops, guess we were wrong. In the interim their agenda gained steam with their fake prediction. Mission accomplished.

 

What is the topic? Alarmism in the scientific community (i.e. this is not the first time I've heard a deadline given to change before it's too late, and I thought 2010 was the last date they said that about (and no, we haven't done it)), or is the topic about restoring the prairies?

 

Oh how we forget.... Yes, the earth was doomed in the seventies as well if you all happen to remember?

http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

 

That's not alarmism though. Alarmism is saying humans are going to die off or there's going to be economic collapse or the like.

Saying that you have until year X to make changes to prevent a +1.5C rise in temperature is just a rational prediction of the situation based on the evidence we have. And when you read the IPCC special report you're really left with the idea that "doing something" as defined in the report by 2030 is not realistic because "doing something" requires not only radical curtailment of carbon emissions but also actually scrubbing it out of the atmosphere in significant quantities. If the goal really was to keep warming to +1.5C then we should have already been "doing something". That doesn't mean limiting the warming to +1.5C is impossible though. But trying to limit the warming to +1.5C at this point would likely cause other economic problems. Remember the IPCC is not allowed to make policy prescriptive statements. They are only allowed to present what-if scenarios. All they're saying in this special report is that if you want to keep the warming at +1.5C then the science says this level of CO2 curtailment must happen.

Is it possible to limit the warming to +1.5C? Probably. Is it realistic? Probably not.

Is it possible to limit the warming to +2.0C? Definitely. Is it realistic? Probably.

Now we can debate about what effects +1.5C and +2.0C will have. There is a lot of debate in this area. And the possible effects are wide ranging. None of the IPCC predictions for these what-if scenarios I would call doomsday'ish or even alarmist. Though some are admittedly cause for concern.

 

Yeah, the media had a hayday with the global cooling craze. The scientific consensus never bought into it. The scientific consensus was still firmly in the global warming camp even in the 70's. In fact, it was during the 70's that the consensus for global warming really started to solidify.

 

.


Of course it's alarmism. Also, the headlines are not reading "we have until 2030 to prevent a 1.5C rise in temperature"

Here's one: "UN Report On Global Warming Carries Life-Or-Death Warning"
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/oct/10/un-report-global-warming-carries-life-or-death-war/

Here's another:"'Tipping point': the point of no return for global warming"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...int-the-point-of-no-return-for-global-warming

And yet another:"Editorial: Dire Global Warming Report Requires Action"
https://www.vnews.com/Editorial-UN-s-dire-climate-warnings-20786339

Yes, the headlines are alarmist.

 

The IPCC does not have the authority to prevent the media from sensationalizing and exaggerating their work though. So if you want to blame someone for these offenses then how about targeting the media?

Can you show me in the report itself an example of something you would call alarmist?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

 

So if the world doesn't end in 2030, can we hang every scientist who said we're screwed? Or, will they all be dead by then, and therefore free from responsibility for their predictions? I'm only 1/2 joking. If a scientist had to give away every dime he has for being wrong, how many would be so keen to tell everyone else how screwed we are? Its quite the luxury to not have to be judged on your job until AFTER you retire or you're at the end of your career and have no accountability or caring whether your predictions ever came true? Most of us are judged on a daily or monthly basis, per project or job. Some scientists entire job is predicting what can't even be proven. Their entire life is hypothetical guessing. And if they're wrong, people are normally thankful(depending on the work), hehe.

 

Rotational grazing is good. Many other aspects of “regenerative ag” are as well. Production agriculture has come a long way in the last 20 years. Minimum/no till crop production has decreased runoff of fertilizer and chemicals and sequestered much carbon as organic matter in soils. Cover crops are the latest revolution in production agriculture.

If the general public wants further sweeping advances in carbon sequestration you will have to change your eating habits. We are supplying what the consumer wants. In a matter of speaking, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Personally, a 1.5-2 degree warming would benefit me overall. I’m sceptical that today’s temp is coincidentally the most advantageous to human life on this planet. Furthermore, for those that are all in on natural selection, if humans aren’t evolved enough to survive a 2 degree rise in temp we deserve to go the way of the dodo.

 

And vice versa.

 

I skimmed the UN report. If the temp does go up like that, you can expect all the people living along the coast to move inland. That is the first thing I can think of that will affect us all. Hopefully we don't have to deal with that.

 

Please don’t stress about it. It won’t happen.

 

Climate Hoax: Not A Single G-20 Country Is Close To Hitting CO2 Emission Targets

Scam!

 

DC area hit with biggest November snowfall in 29 years...
'Reality Is Cooling, Not Warming'...

 

Hmm let me think... either starve to death under a socialist regime while living in card board boxes on the street and fighting for what's left of the dinner fare at the zoo OR become extinct....geez dunno ..tough call.

 

What are you talking about KJ?

 

Just a matter of time until the democrats get back full force in office and when they do, it will literally be bye bye America.

They've already been rigging elections with illegal's votes who they've been funding to come here and they've been spreading these people out in sanctuary cities all across the country so when the 2020 census is done, they'll receive more electoral college votes. That plus many other ways they'll commit election fraud should be enough to take it all next time. It's all very well planned out and obvious to anyone paying attention.

The GOP on the other hand have plenty on these rats to put them away in prison for a long time but they aren't interested AGAIN and why? Because they're all obviously being blackmailed.

So basically, they're ALL corrupt albeit the democrats are far worse of course but what difference will that make given none will be clean enough to rat them out. So for all intents and purposes, they might as well all be in bed together.

The zoo animal reference was a correlation I was making to what's happening in VENEZUELA which the US is poised to imitate.

 

You could always kill yourself and start reducing the population that way rather than genocide like you are planning

 

ok, I see what you mean, and you are dead on. Neither political party is worth voting for. They are all liars who are bought and paid for with very few exceptions.

I won't even mention who I have faith in because it will ruin your point.

 

Ironically, although I'm guessing the dem machine has found something on Trump such as cheating on his taxes (who hasn't?) he's probably the cleanest of all. I think it's time the American people quit being naive and realize what's really happening in Wash DC. With the exception of Trump, it's nearly impossible to find someone in government who hasn't been corrupted to some degree. THEY, the powers that be, would not allow anyone to rise without having something on them, in other words blackmail so he/she could be controlled. This was why the DEMS fabricated Russian collusion narrative so they could open an UNTETHERED investigation which would allow Mueller to find some kind of dirt they could use against him.

The main reason everyone balked so badly on BOTH sides against Trump from the beginning was because he wasn't one of their usual political hacks they could control. Someone they hadn't put through the process of corrupting or in other words, he hadn't signed a deal with the devil in exchange for their endorsement and financial backing. He came with his own money and most importantly, he was shrewd enough to know how to use a hostile highly paid liberal press to his advantage knowing even outrageous news would TRUMP none at all.

The democrat machine has the best investigators known to man kind who have all the tools of the government to work with known as the FBI and CIA.

As for me, since there's not a chance in hell to change any of this and it's too depressing, I'm going to find something better to do with my time rather than post about politics.