0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nc.Given that, so far as I can see, your man Lomberg includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir in the climatological death figures, I'd suggest at the very least he's pushing at the boundaries of disinformation.
''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Quote from: SydneyRover on January 03, 2023, 10:03:06 pm''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_LomborgFair criticism, but this happens in science all the time on both sides of any debate. A lot of climate alarmists have had predictions that haven’t come close to playing out.Al Gore referenced a prominent climate scientist here in 2009 at COP15:“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
Quote from: ncRover on January 03, 2023, 10:11:42 pmQuote from: SydneyRover on January 03, 2023, 10:03:06 pm''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_LomborgFair criticism, but this happens in science all the time on both sides of any debate. A lot of climate alarmists have had predictions that haven’t come close to playing out.Al Gore referenced a prominent climate scientist here in 2009 at COP15:“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”That's not an answer it's whataboutery, lomborg is the boris johnson of the scientific world.
nc,Your unattributed quote from Lomberg is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the challenge ahead.The rise in temps given is a global AVERAGE, it tells you little about the differential impacts of distributed effects.Climate impacts will be a greater burden in the global south, where less resource to mitigate and adapt is available.A 1.5 degree average rise might include higher rises in equitorial regions.Marginal changes in rainfall and temperature may tip these areas into a new normal.Desertification is a major threat to localities on the cusp of viability.Even if Lomberg's view of the past were correct (it is not, btw), it tells us nothing about the future.That is the issue, does the prospect of rapid climate change overwhelm the ability of economies and ecologies to adjust?Are you suggesting (reply 31) that capitalism can deliver an appropriate and timely response to the threat of climate breakdown?How so!
The fact that you quote someone like lomberg shows that you are not across your brief, whatever that is nc.
Nc.That's precisely the same data that Lomberg posted. It comes from precisely the same source. The one that uncritically includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir as natural disasters.
''It was relevant as the post is about extinction rebellion, who think that climate change is an impending catastrophe that we are helpless in the face of. Some people feel like they shouldn’t even have children because of the influence of these groups''Do they? I thought they were fighting to get those in positions of power to get a move on before we get to that position.
Clearly some people have no idea what Extinction Rebellion actually stand for and what their aims actually are. From their website:Extinction Rebellion is an international movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse.They are NOT campaigning against human extinction. They believe in the concept of biodiversity (nature is connected) and are campaigning against mass extinction of a number of species (as per the earlier graph I posted which is only mammals) and the changes in climate which will lead to social problems across the globe (famine/floods/migrant boats etc).They dont believe the human race will become extinct. They believe changes in the climate will cause more conflict among humans and make the world a more difficult place to live.https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/
What you are up against nc is the vast majority (97%) of climate scientist are united in the origins and the effects of climate change. You need to show they are all wrong.edited
And once again nc you are late to the party and want to kickstart an old debate. No problem with your late arrival but at lease bring something new and credible.
Quote from: SydneyRover on January 04, 2023, 09:07:13 pmAnd once again nc you are late to the party and want to kickstart an old debate. No problem with your late arrival but at lease bring something new and credible.I’ll bring what I please to expand the debate, I’m not offending anybody. The forum wouldn’t be much fun with you, BST and Wilts agreeing with each other every day would it?
Quote from: SydneyRover on January 04, 2023, 08:58:06 pmWhat you are up against nc is the vast majority (97%) of climate scientist are united in the origins and the effects of climate change. You need to show they are all wrong.editedHave I said something scientifically incorrect somewhere? I also haven’t denied the effect of man on the climate.Science is never settled, that’s how science works. And on something as broad as the climate, it isn’t just within the realms of climate science.