Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Until I see what you mean I can't say.

If you search for "no gauge-based evidence"(including the quotation marks), you will find several references to that original quote.
Link.

However, no gauge-based evidence had been found for a climate-driven, widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades. There are strong regional and sub-regional variations in the trends. Moreover, it has not been generally possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change.

A team of 17 scientists analyzed precipitation and flood data on six continents during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The scientists noted financial losses from floods have increased during recent years, primarily from more homes and businesses being built in flood-prone areas. The scientists also found changes in infrastructure and land use are exacerbating potential flooding events. Nevertheless, the scientists reported, “It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.”
Importantly, real-world evidence does not support climate models predicting more flooding, the scientists noted.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Climate change is accepted as fact by all but a few. It's now a case of seeing how we can tackle it before it's too late for future generations.

No, it isn't actually. The problem is that anyone who stands up to these climate bullies gets shouted down, careers threatened, etc.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, it isn't actually. The problem is that anyone who stands up to these climate bullies gets shouted down, careers threatened, etc.

Can you evidence this or is it pure conjecture? Careers threatened? Shouted down? Emotive terms considering they are ignoring science.

In the end the vast majority of scientific opinion backs the idea that climate change is real and dangerous. I don't see the point in people who are not experts arguing about it for that long. If the scientific consensus starts to change then we can keep an open mind and revise our opinions but until then I am not going to dismiss expert opinion by listening to people who are not experts such as those who write articles for newspapers on the subject with no scientific background at all.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If you search for "no gauge-based evidence"(including the quotation marks), you will find several references to that original quote.
Link.

Thanks. The no-gauge-based evidence all seems to go back to the one paper which you kindly linked to.
Where does the second quote come from?

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

In the end the vast majority of scientific opinion backs the idea that climate change is real and dangerous. I don't see the point in people who are not experts arguing about it for that long. If the scientific consensus starts to change then we can keep an open mind and revise our opinions but until then I am not going to dismiss expert opinion by listening to people who are not experts such as those who write articles for newspapers on the subject with no scientific background at all.

I think it's human nature to try and push back on the concept because accepting the scientific consensus makes us all responsible for the current situation. Denying it removes the guilt. As you say, the vast majority of scientific opinion backs the fact that climate change is happening and poses a danger to the planet. The economic upside can be found by the country focusing on the skills required for a carbon-neutral country.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, it isn't actually. The problem is that anyone who stands up to these climate bullies gets shouted down, careers threatened, etc.

It's the scientific consensus that has ended the debate not the above conspiracy theories.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's the scientific consensus that has ended the debate not the above conspiracy theories.

Well, clearly, it hasn't ended the debate, Andrew.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, clearly, it hasn't ended the debate, Andrew.

The 'debate' is now between scientists and those with political/commercial interests. I know who I trust more.

[pip08456]

It wouldn't be so bad if the Green energy activists came clean. Solar and wind are far from the answer and it could be argued solar is a problem waiting to happen (in terms of recycling).

If the wind doesn't blow or blows too hard - no energy, fire up the gas powered generating station.

If the sun don't shine all that much - reduced energy, fire up the gas powered generating station.

Makes you wonder why the gas supply companies are behind and funding alternate energy... Not

Add to that electricity consuption is set to rise to unprecedented levels thanks to electric vehicles.

Nuclear and hydro power supply are the only viable options but they don't want them!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The 'debate' is now between scientists and those with political/commercial interests. I know who I trust more.

You should be really pleased that the scientists are saying you can eat butter again after years of telling you it was bad for you. Now it appears that butter should never have been 'banned' and that the Flora we turned to years ago was doing you no good at all!

There are plenty more examples where that came from, so you shouldn't just blindly accept everything you are told by scientists. A little healthy scepticism is required.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You should be really pleased that the scientists are saying you can eat butter again after years of telling you it was bad for you. Now it appears that butter should never have been 'banned' and that the Flora we turned to years ago was doing you no good at all!

There are plenty more examples where that came from, so you shouldn't just blindly accept everything you are told by scientists. A little healthy scepticism is required.

And will you still be sceptical when the flood waters come through your door?

Trouble is there is a point of no return with climate change ( the ' tipping point'). We are very close to that point. Even if sceptics are eventually convinced it may be too late to do anything. Action not words is required.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And will you still be sceptical when the flood waters come through your door?

Trouble is there is a point of no return with climate change ( the ' tipping point'). We are very close to that point. Even if sceptics are eventually convinced it may be too late to do anything. Action not words is required.

Floods in certain areas may lead to death but reduce the population at the same time.

We need a bit more of that then problem solved!

Originally Posted by pip08456

Floods in certain areas may lead to death but reduce the population at the same time.

We need a bit more of that then problem solved!

Unless, of course, you are one of the population being reduced...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Unless, of course, you are one of the population being reduced...

I have no fear of death. If it happens, I've had a good life.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And will you still be sceptical when the flood waters come through your door?

Trouble is there is a point of no return with climate change ( the ' tipping point'). We are very close to that point. Even if sceptics are eventually convinced it may be too late to do anything. Action not words is required.

So how come it's been hotter in the past? The planet didn't blow up then.

You are getting carried away, Mr K.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And will you still be sceptical when the flood waters come through your door?

Trouble is there is a point of no return with climate change ( the ' tipping point'). We are very close to that point. Even if sceptics are eventually convinced it may be too late to do anything. Action not words is required.

If esteemed natural historians like Sir David Attenborough can't convince Old Boy to stop lapping up the misinformation of the fossil fuel lobby, I suspect there's little we can do to convince him.