Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Laypeople on the internet giving you info and links to blogs they found on the internet, but not a actual climate change apocalypse scientist to be seen.

To ensure people don't miss it.

This website is highly regarded, and was recommended to me by multiple people. Don't give up in the pursuit of knowledge, and don't fall for the denialists who are trying to make you believe you can't really know anything about anything.

How many out of the handful of people here do you think wil dig into that?

Oh, I imagine there's well more than a handful.

Hope you know that the majority of thread views listed are from visiting advertising bots.

That's why people have asked why their post has so many views but no replies.

WP is basically a ghost town these days.

Even so, it's a good source and has a chance of making a difference, so why wouldn't I post it? I've already been heavily engaged in the conversation, so I might as well try to contribute to it as well as I can. And posting a highly regarded source that provides sound and useful information to laypeople is definitely that.

It just seems like a few people are on a crusade now and then and using WP as a means of reaching people when there's hardly anyone on the internet using forums these days. Personally I'd pick a more populated format.

Well, I'd have to get established in those places. I've been fairly established in WP, often coming to it when I've gone through difficult times.

I don't know if I'd characterize what I'm doing as a "crusade"; I simply care about this and think it's important, and want to help contribute. Maybe since you've been a "true centrist" who "questions everything", you're suspicious of such people and think any sort of extended effort to advocate for something is a waste of time or must belie some nefarious agenda, I don't know. But I've always had a tendency to care about stuff and will try to make a difference in the best way that I can. Maybe it's from playing video games with heroes and discussion of difficult questions as a kid or something (like Final Fantasy), I don't know.

It has been 10 years since The Copenhagen Accord was agreed to by the delegates at the 15th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. So it is probably good to hit the pause button and assess the effects of the Accord.

In short, in the ten years since Copenhagen, little has really changed:

* Emissions continue to climb, and look likely to carry on doing so.
* Transition to a renewable energy world is painfully slow, and not even keeping up with rising energy demand.
* Promises of $100bn a year in climate aid remain pie in the sky
* There is no prospect of a treaty which binds all countries to specific emission reductions. [On the one hand, the US and EU have wanted a legally binding, global climate change agreement with emission reduction commitments from all countries. On the other, China and India are adamant they should retain their “developing country” status, allowing to them to carry on increasing emissions for as long as they want.]
* Above all, there is absolutely no possibility that global emissions will reduce fast enough and far enough to the levels demanded by climate scientists.

Source: Copenhagen–10 Years On

A rarity:
A rational "Climate Change Proponent".

One of the big problems you have are groups like "Extinction Rebellion" and other climate change catastrophists.
They are the ones who do enormous damage to your cause in the eyes of the general public.
Predictions of doom and gloom which don't eventuate are not your friend and simply garner "Catastrophy Fatigue".

You don't have to be an expert in the climate change issue to see the manipulation and disrespect by some of those who are pushing the man-made climate change narrative.
And when there comes a point where we are told that we aren't allowed to think for ourselves,
That the science been has proven,
And that we should not "worry our pretty heads about it", hang up our scepticism and leave it to the all-knowing overseers,
It is time to dust off the middle finger.

I guess I'll respond to this rant.

I know what the IPCC is, I just forgot the acronym. Climate change isn't exactly a special interest of mine, so I'm likely to forget certain particulars off hand.



"true centrist". You sure come up with a lot of labels for me. Um no, I ask questions the way an interviewer asks questions. Even if I know the answer, I'm still sometimes interested hearing the other person's interpretation and or how much they actually know. I thought we might build up a productive exchange. And you thought I was hatching some scheme or whatever. Maybe next time you will know what I am "up to". jimmy m answered the question far better than you did by the way.

No, it isn't. Not even freaking close.
That entire website is composed of nothing more than a bunch of disingenuous psuedoscientific alarmism masquerading as science. Strawmen, misdirection, non sequiturs, red herrings, incomplete comparisons,half-truths and outright lies- that website has them all.


And here we go with the demonisation again. It's a standard desperation tactic that is, unfortunately, effective on small children and gullible adults.
The rest of us... not so much.

I see that you were kind enough to provide an example:



(1) This is just plain nonsensical drivel- the sort of stuff that I'd expect to see from a fourth grader who knows how to use a spellchecker.
(2) A whole lot of jumping to conclusions and a gross (deliberate?) misunderstanding of causation/correlation.
(3) Once again, the whole causation/correlation thing- and a nice example of a double fallacy.
(4) another example of a double fallacy.


Of course, because as one of the worlds leading innovators in the art of propaganda put it:
"If you repeat the lie often enough..."


Popularity is not a measure of truth.
There are some 'ancient alien' and 'bigfoot' sites out there that are quite popular and recommended by many people. That doesn't mean that they're not complete BS.


And there's that 'denialist' crap again..and a classical example of non sequitur.

SoloSailor,

Are you trying to argue that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas?

No.

Are you trying to misrepresent what I said?

Well it seemed you were arguing that we got the causation of the warming backward. We say the main forcer is carbon dioxide, which you describe as confusing correlation with causation. So if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, surely it is a proximate cause of the current warming and warming episodes in the past?

Please be more specific.