Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 166 to 169 of 169

Thread: Environmental Collapse: when and how bad?

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    On the bus
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    50/50. It depends on the choices we make.
    Would literally take an instant global change of habits which just isn't goin fro happen
    Took a rest stop that wasn't on the schedule

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,908

    Default

    Has anyone else been following this story? Turns out scientists working for Exxon knew about the connection between atmospheric CO2 and the global climate more than 35 years ago, and even predicted pretty much bang on the money that average CO2 levels would reach 415 ppm by 2019, which they recently have.

    exxon_CO2.jpg

    But of course they suppressed it, and became a leading player in the AGW-denial industry. It's depressing to think how much progress could have been made in that time if successful legal challenges had been made against what, even then, was unambiguously a campaign of disinformation which has endangered the entire planet to protect corporate profits.

    It's reminiscent of the way tobacco companies deliberately suppressed research on the health hazards and addiction potential of smoking, which resulted in some huge lawsuits being made against them and all sorts of laws in many countries requiring these companies to say essentially "this product might kill you" on the packaging, as well as restrictions on where you can smoke and so on. The trouble with the fossil fuel companies is that their potential victims are literally *everyone*, rather than an identifiable group of people suffering particular diseases. That said, there could be some hope in this approach, as some people are clearly much more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/13/a...ntl/index.html

    A group of indigenous people from low-lying islands off the coast of Australia on Monday lodged an unprecedented complaint against the country's government, accusing it of insufficient action on climate change.

    The eight Torres Strait Islanders filed the complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that rising sea levels were having a devastating effect on their communities.
    Around 4,500 people live on the Torres Strait Islands, a group of more than 270 islands lying between the north coast of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The complainants say their homes, burial grounds and cultural sites could disappear underwater in their lifetimes.
    Australia's failure to adequately address the problem was a breach of its human rights obligations to the islanders, they allege.
    Australia is a good place to start actually, not just because of their very visible and very disadvantaged indigenous communities but also because they're a particularly bad offender for GHG emissions - eighth-worst in the world a few years ago (in per-person terms).
    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 16-05-2019 at 07:11 PM.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Tea For This Useful Post:


  4. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    8,273

    Default

    Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.

    Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.

    Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

    This document is not a proper scientific paper and would not pass peer review in an academic journal. The crucial data sources (e.g. of the dataset claimed to be low cloud cover) are not provided, and the figure purporting to show changes in cloud cover is at odds with peer-reviewed papers like Eastman et al1. That published scientific paper does not show the decline in low cloud cover claimed in this document.

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

  5. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.

    Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.

    Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

    This document is not a proper scientific paper and would not pass peer review in an academic journal. The crucial data sources (e.g. of the dataset claimed to be low cloud cover) are not provided, and the figure purporting to show changes in cloud cover is at odds with peer-reviewed papers like Eastman et al1. That published scientific paper does not show the decline in low cloud cover claimed in this document.

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/
    Yes it's nonsense, when you go down to the references... tumbleweed and crickets!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •