Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

Well that's pretty good compared with what Guy McPherson gave us five years ago.

Humans 'don't have 10 years' left thanks to climate change - scientist
This guy is one of the "we can't change anything so do nothing squad". Actually turns out he's a biologist, not a climate scientist so he's clearly speaking outside his area of expertise.

@LeeToRainesToRoach's main contribution to this thread is finding the most extreme outliers on both sides and saying "see, scientists don't agree." I will read the Nakamoto book though.

Edit: Mototaka, confused him with the bitcoin guy.
 
Last edited:
This would be more fun at a pub. Can’t see the mutual eye rolling and ‘hear’ the awkward silence over the keyboard.

It’s just great this conversation exists due to the mighty tigers.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
This would be more fun at a pub. Can’t see the mutual eye rolling and ‘hear’ the awkward silence over the keyboard.

It’s just great this conversation exists due to the mighty tigers.

after ten years of the same sh1t it is getting fairly repetitive mind you :cool:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
@LeeToRainesToRoach's main contribution to this thread is finding the most extreme outliers on both sides and saying "see, scientists don't agree." I will read the Nakamoto book though.
I'm casting doubt on the "consensus", yes. But most of all the emergency narrative. No emergency defers to the standard of living in China.

Some AFL players are signing up to something called "AFL Players for Climate Action". (paywalled)

Hollywood-style virtue signalling at its finest. I doubt any of these players understands what he's putting his name to apart from some vague notion of "net zero". Stop scaring the kids!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm casting doubt on the "consensus", yes. But most of all the emergency narrative. No emergency defers to the standard of living in China.

We have responsibility for our contribution, which is very substantial, especially when you look at our fossil fuel exports. That is clearly where we should start.

You are doing a lot more than question the emergency narrative, you constantly seek to undermine the science and even post crap like this:

We are currently experiencing mild warming that has more pros than cons for the planet.

That is clearly a lot more than "questioning the emergency narrative" and you posted this just yesterday.

China clearly needs to be pressured on climate change, but at least they have some commitment to net zero, which is more than I can say for Australia.

DS
 
I'm casting doubt on the "consensus", yes. But most of all the emergency narrative. No emergency defers to the standard of living in China.

You know, when you look at world history, whether it's business, politics, whatever, the strategy of digging your heels in, sticking your head in the sand and refusing to change generally works out super, super well.
 
China clearly needs to be pressured on climate change, but at least they have some commitment to net zero, which is more than I can say for Australia.
Well they've got you fooled.

How China is hoodwinking the world on climate (paywalled)
A secret Chinese campaign to infiltrate global environmental bodies, including those associated with the UN, is threatening global efforts to move to net zero.

Two years after the world watched as China manipulated the World Health Organisation to promote its narrative about the pandemic, evidence is mounting that Beijing is also working to reshape the way the world regulates the environment to suit its own ends.

At the same time, China is also continuing to build coal fired power plants as energy shortages bite – and quietly easing its previous bans on using Australian coal.
Pretty much doing what every other country does - what's best for China.
You are doing a lot more than question the emergency narrative, you constantly seek to undermine the science and even post crap like this:
It's demonstrably true. Fewer people are dying of weather extremes as temperature increases. Habitable zones, agricultural yields and global economic output are increasing. This won't continue forever, of course.
 
It's demonstrably true. Fewer people are dying of weather extremes as temperature increases. Habitable zones, agricultural yields and global economic output are increasing. This won't continue forever, of course.
Show us the stats showing reduced deaths due to weather extremes.

Agriculturists note that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth but nutritional value decreases. I've shown you this before, perhaps you forgot.

I gave you the data showing the current, real increased deaths and shorter lifespans due to greater spread of tropical diseases like malaria and your response was "people will always die".
 
Show us the stats showing reduced deaths due to weather extremes.
Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think

im-401767
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I said China has some commitment to net zero, it may not be serious and it may be just an announcement. They're not fooling me at all, I trust them as much as I trust the Australian government, not at all.

But compared to Australia's commitment which is . . . well, no commitment at all, it is actually marginally better. That's not complimenting China, that is pointing out just how woefully hopeless Australia is on global warming.

Just comparing heat and cold deaths from the Murdoch press is the level of research I expect from those who choose to stay wilfully ignorant. That's at the level of claiming that the world will be better off with warming, oh wait, you did that already.

DS
 
Paywalled, but you get the idea. Lee doesn't read things he cites anyway. These numbers are from a 2015 article in the Lancet - full article here.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

On reading of Lomberg's take on their article, two of the authors replied.:

Antonio Gasparrini, Senior Lecturer, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

My review is limited to the part of the article that describes the results of the study published in The Lancet, which I first-authored.
The interpretation provided in the article is misleading, as our study is meant to provide evidfence on past/current relationships between temperature and health, and not to assess changes in the future. In addition, the study does not offer a global assessment, and it is limited to a set of countries not representative of the global population.

Kristie Ebi, Professor, University of Washington:

Mr. Lomborg is confusing seasonal mortality with temperature-related mortality. It is true that mortality is higher during winter than summer. However, it does not follow that winter mortality is temperature-dependent (which summer mortality is). Dave Mills and I reviewed the evidence and concluded that only a small proportion of winter mortality is likely associated with temperature. A growing numbers of publications are exploring associations between weather and winter mortality, with differences in methods and results. The country with the strongest association between winter mortality and temperature is England, which appears in other publications to be at least partly due to cold housing. Winter mortality is lower in northern European countries.

Cited here - article which contains a good discussion of the issues and complexity around this.


Anyway, I'll smash these numbers out of the park when we come to look at increases in tropical disease deaths - which I've mentioned before and Lee responded, "oh well, people die".
 
I think it’s a fair point to argue what is the best temperature overall and that any shift up or down causes winners and losers.

Is there a general consensus on what temperature is best as opposed to just hotter is bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think it is a fair point to argue we don't know the full impact of what we are doing and the damage it can cause. So, maybe we should stop messing with the only planet we have.

DS
 
I think it is a fair point to argue we don't know the full impact of what we are doing and the damage it can cause. So, maybe we should stop messing with the only planet we have.

DS

That’s what the human species does by its very existence.
 
I think it’s a fair point to argue what is the best temperature overall and that any shift up or down causes winners and losers.

Is there a general consensus on what temperature is best as opposed to just hotter is bad?

yes, any switch up or down causes winners and losers - I get that if you live in a godforsaken part of northern Russia a few degrees warmer would be welcome. The "more agriculture" argument is usually run by Russian propaganda sites, and we know how Lee is easily influenced by those.

There really is no "ideal" future state temp because of the unpredictability of climate drivers that a warmer planet in general could mean a freezing northern Europe, which would make many people unhappy. As mentioned the increase of tropical diseases outweighs the benefit, if there is one, from fewer extreme cold deaths. Even if we knew an "ideal" temp, getting there would be fraught with danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user