UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,924
Certainly happy to show why I think you are probably wrong.

You believe that the evidence that past climate changes have occurred demonstrates that the current one (if we can agree there is one currently taking place) is occurring on the same basis, i.e. non Anthropogenic reasons.

I would say that that reasoning ignores that the previous climate changes occurred without the humans as part of its "equation". The current environment has had to endure the impact of humans somehow.

So the current climate has an additional element in the equation that is incomparable to previous climate changes. So to say because we had previous ones before, explain the current one speaks to ignoring the potential impact humans have.

My understanding is humans have had an effect and the effect is beginning to be understood and there is research to demonstrate that the effect has caused some changes.

I do think it is at a rate less than what some of the reports say. I think the change is more a mid-term than a short term event (i.e. 50 years as apposed to 10).
Thank-you. I appreciate your response.

However, I can't see your critique of my reasoning, which would at a minimum entail a statement of my major and minor premises and some exposition of the alleged errors in logic (such as unwarranted assumptions, identity confusions, affirming the consequent, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, post hoc causality, begging the question, and so on.)

Rather, you seem to argue the pros and cons of AGW itself. Which I'm quite happy to do, though it's not what I thought you meant when you said my reasoning is faulty. Perhaps you mean that you disagree with my views for reasons you regard as valid, and that therefore my own views are invalid or faulty? That's something else.

Before we get to the substantive issue ad rem, let me just clarify one thing:

In Post 47 above I said: "But I'm unconvinced that this change is anthropogenic. As is the case in 100% of all previous climate shifts, the odds are rather high that this current one, too, is natural. I strongly suspect that there's pretty much buggerall we as a species can do about it, other than adapt or die."

Firstly, that was never intended to be some closely reasoned argument. It is simply a forum statement of several related by not logically connected remarks. As are most posts and comments by most people on most forums, and also in this thread.

In context, the "odds" (ie probability) refers not to the probability obtaining in nature (ie extra-mental reality), but to the relative weighting we ought to assign to our selection of particular causal accounts of an observed phenomenon (in this case, planetary warming).

My meaning, to spell it out is: We can say with a high degree of certainty that all past climate changes - of which there are several, including in anthropocene periods into recorded history - were not caused by humans. Since we are now experiencing what an increasing number of observers believe to be the early stages of yet another climate shift, it is both logical and prudent to hypothesise in the first place that the same non-anthropological causes that gave rise to previous shifts might with high probability also now be at work in this present shift. In other words, the "odds" refers to the relative weightings we should assign to the various competing hypotheses attempting a causal account of the present and speculated future change.

(How some infer that I cling to the ludicrous notion that the "odds" are somehow invested in nature's operations is beyond me. The "odds" refer to the relative probability prudentially assigned by human consciousness to the likelihood of any particular hypothesis comporting with phenomena as observed and interpreted by the human intellect.)

With that out of the way, let me turn to the substance of your quibble. You make several points.

In the first part, you aver (along with a great many scientists) that there are now new circumstances ("an additional element") that make this current change different from previous ones.

I have no quibble with that in principle. There are indeed many circumstances now that are different from past changes. I can think of a dozen or two.

Of course one will have to examine as many of these circumstances as we can discern, and then make an assessment of their real-world impact as best as we can determine given the obvious limitations.

Implicit in your argument is that these new circumstances in some way account for the current change such that, were these new circumstances not present, we would not be experiencing a change in climate.

Though you do not attempt to address that implicit assumption (one necessary for your argument to work), I raise my hand and say "that's an unsupported claim" - one that must be substantiated for the rest of the argument to hang together.

So, it seems I might have to wait for an exposition of my faulty reasoning, and we should return to a discussion about the merits of various argument for an against AGW and what if anything we ought or can do about it.

I'm off to get fish & chips, and thereafter spend an evening with family and friends. Catch you later.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,709
And what would the economic ( and humanitarian ) consequences be should the believers be proved right ?
I was just pointing out that your argument that we might as well go along with it anyway, regardless of whether you believe that there is an impending catastrophe or not, is not without economic cost and consequences, particularly to third world industrialization. Mitigation at any meaningful level is not cost free - it could literally mean that much of the third world never has the opportunity to develop out of poverty, or that it's delayed for many decades - so if it's wrong it has a cost.
And that's the big rub. If the measures are implemented it will be at the cost of the poorest of the poor. That could possibly have a worst effect than the unproven ones of climate change. If the believers are right it would actually be a double whammy for them.

It isn't really needed to use climate change as an excuse. We should implement measures for a cleaner environment regardless. We are running out of resources and digging up more and more earth. Increased taxes only goes into the pockets of corrupt governments. Renewables should be encouraged rather. I'm not a fan and don't think taxes should be used either to encourage or discourage anything but if we do anything it should be lowering taxes on renewables and cleaner energy. Nothing needs to be forced on non-developed countries however.

No-one cares what you're convinced or not convinced by.
Feel free to add to the scientific literature then if you've good such good ideas and studies on why anthropogenic climate change is not a thing.
Or let science prove it rather. As it is there is no conclusion that can be drawn. It's only about which politicians can shout the loudest.

I know who the market is.

People still chose companies to build for them regardless of how many people they killed. They did it for countless decades. Construction companies were not disbarred from bidding on projects because they killed 10 people on the last job.

The market (people like you and me) chose the companies.

The evil government said hold on a minute, why are you killing so many people. Lets put this law and act in place. In countries that did this, the change was observed almost immediately.

Looking at unregulated construction industries, such as Qatar, where they have killed hundreds on the construction of the football stadia, the market has chosen to keep with them.
And who called for those regulations? Oh yes, the market did. The government didn't just one day decide to enact new laws to benefit people. That's not how governments work, they don't and can't care about the well being of people. You don't understand what the market really is.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
16,009
and this in today:
Independent Audit Exposes the Fraud in Global Warming Data
An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.” Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland. The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
7,128
From the horse’s mouth:

We (UN IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...”

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...


- Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, in an interview on November 13, 2010.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,515
From the horse’s mouth:

We (UN IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...”

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...
.
Perhaps quoting the full text of what he said might be better...
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/08/ottmar-edenhofer-climate-politics-redistribution-wealth.html

Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,515
That piece is more than a little lacking, and then you read some of his other stuff...

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/snowing-in-july-in-austria/

A reader from Austria sent this photo from Paznauner Taja Ischgl. It was snowing there on July 14. Unfortunately, we are heading into a global cooling period.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-atlantic-current-if-slowing-down-global-cooling/

We are headed into a new Mini Ice Age and it will continue to get colder and colder, Europe, Japan, China, Canada, and the United States. Our models confirm it is GLOBAL COOLING we must be concerned about for that brings disease and famine. So while governments are just exploiting the global warming nonsense to impose carbon taxes, the real risk to our survival lies in the opposite direction.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/sea-ice-has-expanded-hundreds-of-miles-welcome-global-cooling/

Sea Ice Has Expanded Hundreds of Miles — Welcome Global Cooling!
Global cooling huh? o_O Not quite as bad as a senator with a snowball at least...
 

Jings

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
35,459
Climate genocide? Really?

Paul Ehrlich, anyone?

I'll eat my hat, and yours too, if any of this comes to pass in the real world.

What is coming is financial meltdown, closely followed by economic collapse, social dislocation, and then revolution followed by war. All brought on by the insane policies of the same sort of loopy progressives that bleat on about anthropogenic climate change - they've wreaked financial and social havoc over the past two generations. And the chickens are about to come home to roost.
Agreed, we'll have a major war before climate genocide becomes all the rage.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
16,009
That piece is more than a little lacking, and then you read some of his other stuff...
Except this is not "his stuff", you could have tracked down the original article from The Australian (paywalled unless you find it via google sometimes), or you could drop $8 and take a look at the actual paper:
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

But hey I suppose it is much easier to just attack a source, even if he isn't the source in this case ...
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,688
Except you haven't provided an example of the market not working or needing legislation. Your example is a government project.
Construction companies build projects for private citizens all the time. Houses, offices, shopping malls ...
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,066
Is this now some weak attempt at a character assassination because you don't like that audit?
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,066
sometimes it comes across that some people think its all a load of hogwash and we should ignore it and laugh at people
Well yes laugh at the doomsday idiots, but then don't buy a house below sea level or in a floodplain.
Like with everything it is full of half truths. Pollution is bad for many reasons and global warming is probably last on the list if it even is on the list.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,066
You haven't addressed one single aspect. Care to even try?
Firstly your example is wrong because that's a government project. If government cared their would be less deaths in their projects and they would be the shinny example of health and safety, which they're not.
Secondly people should be grown up enough to take responsibility for themselves and not do reckless stuff that would get them killed, you don't need government regulations for that.
Thirdly an accident is an accident learn from it and move on. I'm all for education telling people not to be stupid with heavy machinery, but no government intervention is necessary for that.
Any argument for regulations to nanny and protect people against themselves rest solely on the idea the people are too stupid to function without central control telling them what is acceptable. Then you have to make a case that that centralised authority actually know better than the average person about what is best for them, which eventually leads to communism if you take it all the way, basically the opposite of free market and private property. The government knows best and everyone works for the greater good. That line of reasoning has proven to be murderous in the past. It is also nonsense that you can only implement the good part of that and not take it all the way. The bureaucracy will eventually grow out of control and corrupt like we see here by us.
The only argument you can make for the need of government and agents the free market is one of funding for big projects, because the government can tax it's populace which a private enterprise cant do. But even that falls flat as there are ways around that and governments has proven themselves inefficient.
 
Top