Jump to content


Photo

UN latest climate outlook


  • Please log in to reply
1205 replies to this topic

#41 Megwyn

Megwyn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationSomewhere - I think

Posted 17 March 2015 - 05:32 PM

If we believe the Pro side that means billion of dollars will be transferred around the place. Later this year the Govts and NGOs will be in Paris and will vote on a 100 billion dollar transfer of wealth from the 'developed nations' to the undeveloped under the guise of CC mitigation. Basically that means you and I will be forced into giving our money to China, India and countries like that to stop them emitting stuff. But we all know they will stop when they decide they want to and the money that makes it through all the hands, traps and syphon off points will make little difference.

 

Who is going to pay that 100 billion dollars? And that's only the IPCC meeting coin, not all the other billions involved in all of this.

 

Is the science really that settled we can afford to take money from the already poor to give to big multi-nationals, corrupt foreign Govts, the numerous agents with hands out, commissions being paid to some poor people like Al Gore and all the other scams that come with things like this?

 

I really don't think it is.

You get no argument from me on that KM.

 

As with everything, it all boils down to money and greed, and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping our planet habitable for all species. And for me, that is the real shame, that as a species we have become greedy hateful beings that crap in our own nest. They call it progress. . .


  • 0
All experience is an arch wherethrough Gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades for ever and for ever when I move

#42 Pumbaa

Pumbaa

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • LocationBay of Islands

Posted 18 March 2015 - 08:50 AM

 

"The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled"

 

KMm, that statement predisposes that everyone else started from a predetermined point. That is a completely false and disdainful assumption. Apart from those that are taking sides along political lines I would think that everyone came to their own conclusions through their own investigation and assessment of the science and the characters involved.

Take me for example, I seem to have and inherent distrust of corporations and politicians almost anyone in fact that primarily does works for the money and privilege. I believe their motives need scrutiny.

 

As for  the subject being  "far from settled" people are still debating the theory of evolution or whether man landed on the moon. At what point will you be happy?

 

So what are the alternative sources for the warming? 

 

If we are confronted with a problem that may take a couple of centuries to fix but we can't be 100% certain of it's cause (because of rigorous scientific principles, but lets say we're pretty sure) what do you suggest we do?

 

I agree that the money will bring on massive corruption, but that is there already, you could say it's endemic to humanity. What will the Nigerians do with their share? And what has been done already by the global businesses in the "third world"? We wouldn't have our lifestyles if it hadn't been for things like the British, French or American empires walking around the world taking whatever they felt like with a stupifyingly large sense of entitlement. Should we form a global government and make sure it happens they way "we " want it to?

 

The problem will get sorted and the discussion will end when, like I've said before, the rich and powerful have shifted their finances from the fossil industry and have got their noses into the next big thing. At the moment I believe they are slowing down the play to get themselves into a better position. Because if they weren't affected by the findings of decades of research there wouldn't be any denial discussion outside of the tin foil hat brigade. They will defend their position as long as they can then abandon it leaving behind those that didn't or wouldn't understand the game.

 

After it's all done they will say they were just supporting a rigorous scientific process out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

And if you're wondering who "they" are they are the investors in the coal, oil and associated industries. For example they'll leave the Aussie government high and dry after Abbott's hitched his cart to the coal industry, they won't repay the favour in kind.


  • 1
I had promised that I wouldn't buy another boat that didn't work, was broken, unfinished, sunk or that I hadn't seen.

#43 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 11:03 AM

 

"The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled"

 

KMm, that statement predisposes that everyone else started from a predetermined point. That is a completely false and disdainful assumption. Apart from those that are taking sides along political lines I would think that everyone came to their own conclusions through their own investigation and assessment of the science and the characters involved. No, I'm sorry but you're wrong. LOTS of people have decided already for basically limp reasons that have nothing what so ever to do with research or stuff like that. We've seen that very thing in this thread. Sure that's not all people but it's a hell of a lot and I'd say the majority.  It's easier to listen to someone with a flash title saying 'If we don't play nice the Penguins will get it'. Most people will think 'he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he has a flash title and Penguins are soooo cute, I think I agree with him'. And Bingo, that's their decision made. There is a massive amount of emotion being used to manipulate people and it is a easy subject to use emotion as a tool. CC is a marketers dream.

 

Take me for example, I seem to have and inherent distrust of corporations and politicians almost anyone in fact that primarily does works for the money and privilege. I believe their motives need scrutiny. I'm standing right there beside you on that.. but why limit yourself to only that group for whom money is a big deal? Why not include organisations who get say many many millions a year, and stand to get even more, because they say they believe in one side or the other? Those mobs are out there and some are raking in massive sums.

 

As for  the subject being  "far from settled" people are still debating the theory of evolution or whether man landed on the moon. At what point will you be happy?  I'd be happier about the CC debate if it was as simple as evolution or creation or the moon landings, but its far from it. One simple question I've asked a lot of people, including 2 Uni Professors, "If we can't predict with in a knot or 2 or degree or 2 what the weather will do in a months time, what makes you so sure the 0.25 degrees per annum (or whatever) change will indeed happen in 10 years time?'. Do that and suss the responses, they are interesting.

 

So what are the alternative sources for the warming? There are lots of other possible reasons as many well respected scientists from well respected institutions have and continue to put forward. What caused the climate change 4 billion years ago?, 1 billion?, 100,000 year, 1500 years ago? Maybe it's the same thing causing it today, in fact there is no doubt that is fact and the only question is how much, if any, input is man adding into it all? I'm sure man has some input but how much is the biggie.

 

If we are confronted with a problem that may take a couple of centuries to fix but we can't be 100% certain of it's cause (because of rigorous scientific principles, but lets say we're pretty sure) what do you suggest we do? Minimise our footprint in any way we can, a principal I and 1000's live by daily. But many don't, they need to get their sh*t together and stop being selfish. 

 

I agree that the money will bring on massive corruption, but that is there already, you could say it's endemic to humanity. What will the Nigerians do with their share? And what has been done already by the global businesses in the "third world"? We wouldn't have our lifestyles if it hadn't been for things like the British, French or American empires walking around the world taking whatever they felt like with a stupifyingly large sense of entitlement. Should we form a global government and make sure it happens they way "we " want it to? We have global government now, it's call the UN. It has bodies that can and do force our Govt to do sh*t, one's called the IPCC. The rest is history so shouldn't be able to be changed but the internet will change history if it wants to, it's doing it in lots of other areas.

 

The problem will get sorted and the discussion will end when, like I've said before, the rich and powerful have shifted their finances from the fossil industry and have got their noses into the next big thing. At the moment I believe they are slowing down the play to get themselves into a better position. Because if they weren't affected by the findings of decades of research there wouldn't be any denial discussion outside of the tin foil hat brigade. They will defend their position as long as they can then abandon it leaving behind those that didn't or wouldn't understand the game. Yeap, the money flowing into CC investigation and mitigation is probably one of the biggest flows of coin the world has ever seen. So as each day passes it become more imperative for Govts, big business and the like, including many scientific organisations, that man is changing the climate. If someone came out tomorrow with definitive proof man is not the majority cause then a lot of big powerful organisations and people will not only lose their shirt, they will be made to look dodgy as sin. Do you expect them to sit back quietly and let that even get close to being a possibility? 

 

Money can be used to trash either side of the debate... not to mention keep the minions amused while the dodgy continues quietly in the back ground.

 

After it's all done they will say they were just supporting a rigorous scientific process out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

And if you're wondering who "they" are they are the investors in the coal, oil and associated industries. For example they'll leave the Aussie government high and dry after Abbott's hitched his cart to the coal industry, they won't repay the favour in kind. 'They' are numerous, come in all shapes and 'they' both support and don't support either side of the debate. 'They' do not only inhabit one side of it.

The reverse question needs to be asked of you and many others.

 

We are well aware you believe the anti side is full of corruption and dodgy activities. What makes you so sure it's only that side and the Pro side is not? And if you don't believe either side is squeaky then why do you choose to believe one dodgy bunch and not the other? 

 

And 'Because Professor Zippy Knuts said so' isn't really that good an answer as it only raised the question of why do you believe Prof Zippy Knuts and not Prof Dingle Dangle.

 

 

It's a interesting subject in so many ways on so many levels. I'm find it absolutely fascinating, almost additively so. I just hope I'm still around the day it is truly settled one way or the other.


  • 1

#44 Pumbaa

Pumbaa

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • LocationBay of Islands

Posted 18 March 2015 - 12:34 PM

"The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled"

 

KMm, that statement predisposes that everyone else started from a predetermined point. That is a completely false and disdainful assumption. Apart from those that are taking sides along political lines I would think that everyone came to their own conclusions through their own investigation and assessment of the science and the characters involved. No, I'm sorry but you're wrong. LOTS of people have decided already for basically limp reasons that have nothing what so ever to do with research or stuff like that. We've seen that very thing in this thread. Sure that's not all people but it's a hell of a lot and I'd say the majority.  It's easier to listen to someone with a flash title saying 'If we don't play nice the Penguins will get it'. Most people will think 'he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he has a flash title and Penguins are soooo cute, I think I agree with him'. And Bingo, that's their decision made. There is a massive amount of emotion being used to manipulate people and it is a easy subject to use emotion as a tool. CC is a marketers dream. Fair enough I'll not dispute the fluffy bunny factor.

 

Take me for example, I seem to have and inherent distrust of corporations and politicians almost anyone in fact that primarily does works for the money and privilege. I believe their motives need scrutiny. I'm standing right there beside you on that.. but why limit yourself to only that group for whom money is a big deal? Why not include organisations who get say many many millions a year, and stand to get even more, because they say they believe in one side or the other? Those mobs are out there and some are raking in massive sums. I didn't exclude those groups/people

 

As for  the subject being  "far from settled" people are still debating the theory of evolution or whether man landed on the moon. At what point will you be happy?  I'd be happier about the CC debate if it was as simple as evolution or creation or the moon landings, but its far from it. One simple question I've asked a lot of people, including 2 Uni Professors, "If we can't predict with in a knot or 2 or degree or 2 what the weather will do in a months time, what makes you so sure the 0.25 degrees per annum (or whatever) change will indeed happen in 10 years time?'. Do that and suss the responses, they are interesting. That's the climate/weather 101 debate.

 

So what are the alternative sources for the warming? There are lots of other possible reasons as many well respected scientists from well respected institutions have and continue to put forward. What caused the climate change 4 billion years ago?, 1 billion?, 100,000 year, 1500 years ago? Maybe it's the same thing causing it today, in fact there is no doubt that is fact and the only question is how much, if any, input is man adding into it all? I'm sure man has some input but how much is the biggie. Climate change billions of years ago was driven by absorption and production of CO2  http://www.snowballe....org/cause.html

 

If we are confronted with a problem that may take a couple of centuries to fix but we can't be 100% certain of it's cause (because of rigorous scientific principles, but lets say we're pretty sure) what do you suggest we do? Minimise our footprint in any way we can, a principal I and 1000's live by daily. But many don't, they need to get their sh*t together and stop being selfish. But that doesn't address the thousands of coal powered power stations

 

I agree that the money will bring on massive corruption, but that is there already, you could say it's endemic to humanity. What will the Nigerians do with their share? And what has been done already by the global businesses in the "third world"? We wouldn't have our lifestyles if it hadn't been for things like the British, French or American empires walking around the world taking whatever they felt like with a stupifyingly large sense of entitlement. Should we form a global government and make sure it happens they way "we " want it to? We have global government now, it's call the UN. It has bodies that can and do force our Govt to do sh*t, one's called the IPCC. The rest is history so shouldn't be able to be changed but the internet will change history if it wants to, it's doing it in lots of other areas. I don't think changing history is limited to the internet the encyclopedia Brittanica always seemed rather light on massacres and resource theft by the commonwealth et al.

 

The problem will get sorted and the discussion will end when, like I've said before, the rich and powerful have shifted their finances from the fossil industry and have got their noses into the next big thing. At the moment I believe they are slowing down the play to get themselves into a better position. Because if they weren't affected by the findings of decades of research there wouldn't be any denial discussion outside of the tin foil hat brigade. They will defend their position as long as they can then abandon it leaving behind those that didn't or wouldn't understand the game. Yeap, the money flowing into CC investigation and mitigation is probably one of the biggest flows of coin the world has ever seen. So as each day passes it become more imperative for Govts, big business and the like, including many scientific organisations, that man is changing the climate. If someone came out tomorrow with definitive proof man is not the majority cause then a lot of big powerful organisations and people will not only lose their shirt, they will be made to look dodgy as sin. Do you expect them to sit back quietly and let that even get close to being a possibility? Yep the money is moving into "clean" energy I wonder how much pollution will be pumped into rivers from dodgy solar panel manufactures or similar.

 

Money can be used to trash either side of the debate... not to mention keep the minions amused while the dodgy continues quietly in the back ground.

 

After it's all done they will say they were just supporting a rigorous scientific process out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

And if you're wondering who "they" are they are the investors in the coal, oil and associated industries. For example they'll leave the Aussie government high and dry after Abbott's hitched his cart to the coal industry, they won't repay the favour in kind. 'They' are numerous, come in all shapes and 'they' both support and don't support either side of the debate. 'They' do not only inhabit one side of it. No, but I was referring to the "they's" who are stalling the decision making process.

 

And to reply to your last bit before I really have to get some work done, I think I have a well balanced and honest view of the debate and the participants. I don't think the denial side is the only side with issues. But I trust the motives of the pro side rather than the denialists. Professor Dingle Dangle would love to be the man who changed the world by proving the whole thing is balls but he can't. Professor Zippy Nuts first wrote the paper because of his own poorly paid research in the 70's which built on Professor Bumble Nuts (no relation) research in the 40"s and 50"s. Professor Dingle Dangle has been unable to prove them wrong. Scientists are a very competitive bunch who would love to get their names up in lights but they are notoriously bad with money. I don't believe either in a global cabal of climate scientists conspiring together for fat research grants.


  • 0
I had promised that I wouldn't buy another boat that didn't work, was broken, unfinished, sunk or that I hadn't seen.

#45 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 18 March 2015 - 12:39 PM

"The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled"
 
KMm, that statement predisposes that everyone else started from a predetermined point. That is a completely false and disdainful assumption. Apart from those that are taking sides along political lines I would think that everyone came to their own conclusions through their own investigation and assessment of the science and the characters involved.
Take me for example, I seem to have and inherent distrust of corporations and politicians almost anyone in fact that primarily does works for the money and privilege. I believe their motives need scrutiny.
 
As for  the subject being  "far from settled" people are still debating the theory of evolution or whether man landed on the moon. At what point will you be happy?
 
So what are the alternative sources for the warming? 
 
If we are confronted with a problem that may take a couple of centuries to fix but we can't be 100% certain of it's cause (because of rigorous scientific principles, but lets say we're pretty sure) what do you suggest we do?
 
I agree that the money will bring on massive corruption, but that is there already, you could say it's endemic to humanity. What will the Nigerians do with their share? And what has been done already by the global businesses in the "third world"? We wouldn't have our lifestyles if it hadn't been for things like the British, French or American empires walking around the world taking whatever they felt like with a stupifyingly large sense of entitlement. Should we form a global government and make sure it happens they way "we " want it to?%



No Join the Movement with the help on the Guardian news paper and sign the PETITION


Climate change poses a real threat to all of us, and it is morally and financially misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding and burning more oil, gas and coal. Many philanthropic organisations are divesting their endowments from fossil fuels. We ask you to do the same: to commit now to divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies within five years and to immediately freeze any new investments in those companies.



http://www.theguardi...change-campaign

OC
  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.


#46 Pumbaa

Pumbaa

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • LocationBay of Islands

Posted 18 March 2015 - 01:01 PM

Am is this one of those internet moments when someone on here diagnoses you as having a seizure? Or did you just really like my post? Are you driving your car? If you're having a seizure type "I love Dean, he's the best" 


  • 1
I had promised that I wouldn't buy another boat that didn't work, was broken, unfinished, sunk or that I hadn't seen.

#47 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 02:23 PM

Am is this one of those internet moments when someone on here diagnoses you as having a seizure? Or did you just really like my post? Are you driving your car? If you're having a seizure type "I love Dean, he's the best" 

:razz: :razz:  Mouse stutter ???

 

 

P, I think we are in a similar place except you're a little more convinced one way than I am at the moment.

 

I do like your scepticism, in todays world it's a handy thing to have, if not an essential.


  • 0

#48 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:26 AM

You get no argument from me on that KM.
 
As with everything, it all boils down to money and greed, and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping our planet habitable for all species. And for me, that is the real shame, that as a species we have become greedy hateful beings that crap in our own nest. They call it progress. . .


 

http://www.theguardi...change-campaign


  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.


#49 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 07:31 AM

From one of my favourite countries

 

 

http://thinkprogress...ica-renewables/

 

 

 

Part of the reason why Costa Rica can devote so much funding to environmental issues is that the country abolished its military in 1948, allowing it to divert funds that would have gone towards defense needs to the environment, healthcare, and education.

 

 


  • 1
  Two figures sat side by side, staring at the Sea. One said to the other, “You know that one day we will die.” And the other friend replied, “But all of the other days WE WILL LIVE!”

 


#50 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 25 March 2015 - 10:49 AM

23 - 03 - 2015

 

 

China’s Top Meteorologist: ‘Serious Threat’ Of Climate Change Could Have ‘Huge Impacts’

 

 

Worth a read and they are still expanding burning fossil fuels and negotiating to buy coal from Australia

 

 

http://thinkprogress...serious-threat/


  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users