Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
No, as I said, I was just reiterating that it is a disingenuous question, my answer was that destabilising the climate from the state in which civilisation developed is far from perfect. Stopping the warming, while impossible, would prevent further damage and suffering, but does not imply that the current climate, or any climate, is 'perfect'.
https://mashable.com/2018/02/14/what-is-earths-ideal-temperature/?europe=true
You are displaying a curious logic, Mr Clarke. What damage and suffering has warming done, so far? Overall, the net benefit since the little ice age has been beneficial, so what if further warming just continues to improve our world? You do seem to work on the rather odd logic of any change that can be blamed on humans (however twisted that logic might be!) can only be detrimental, in one form or another. That this has not been shown to be anywhere near the case, throughout history, remains utterly irrelevant to you. Never mind…
Excess deaths.
Coral Reefs down 30-50% since the 1980s, projected to lose 70-90% under a 1.5C rise in global temperatures.
Damage to economic growth, increased inequality.
Local Extinctions
More heatwaves, extreme weather events made more likely.
To name a few.
Thanks for the link to the WHO website. It's highly tendentious, to say the least. I could take it apart, piece by piece,, but I can't be bothered.
There's a tragic irony in the WHO worrying about climate change while looking the other way while the coronavirus developed. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/will-climate-change-bring-benefits-from-reduced-cold-related-mortality-insights-from-the-latest-epidemiological-research/
I agree, Mr Hodgson. The scares over coral reefs have been disproved; economic growth has specifically occurred because of our use of fossil fuels but is now absurdly deemed "threatened" by it; “equality” will never exist anyway but, over the last 150 years or so, abject poverty has plummeted from 90% to about 1% – while overall wealth grows, difference of wealth (i.e. the opposite of "equality of wealth) will also grow, while actual poverty plummets. As for local extinctions, there really has been no need for “human-induced climate change” to do that – in fact, it is probable that our developed world has saved more threatened species than it has destroyed; many of the known species made extinct by human activity were lost through ignorance – one was lost just because the lighthouse keeper wanted a cat for company! Certainly, the likely rate of loss of species has been suggested to be about 200 per year; but we are presently losing species at the rate of about 20 per year – more species are being discovered in a day than are lost in a year.
It is so much like beating your head against a wall that it really is not worth it. There will always be plenty of half-baked, nonsensical “peer-reviewed” papers on-line that “prove” Mr Clarke’s points, so, perhaps it is better just let time takes its course, and we shall see.
The scares over coral reefs have been disproved;
When? Where? And by Whom?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
it is probable that our developed world has saved more threatened species than it has destroyed;
That is improbable. According to The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 65 global indicators of human impacts on biodiversity, only one – the extent of temperate forests – is improving. 18 are stable, in all the rest the impacts are increasing.
more species are being discovered in a day than are lost in a year.
In reality, a sixth mass extinction event is underway.
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253>
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253>
Feb 29, 2020 at 7:07 PM Phil Clarke
The list of authors includes Paul R Ehrlich
"Gerardo Ceballos1,*, Paul R. Ehrlich2, Anthony D. Barnosky3, Andrés García4, Robert M. Pringle5 "
He has never been right before, why should he be trusted now?
Ad hom
...... a mini stoat opines
Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
Holocene Extinction
Are We Really in a 6th Mass Extinction? Here's The Science
What are mass extinctions, and what causes them?
Earth has entered into a sixth mass extinction event
"Ad hom
Mar 1, 2020 at 9:45 AM Phil Clarke"
Perhaps everyone should point out yours?
GC: I am a bit perplexed as to how pointing out a simple fact – that Paul Ehrlich has never been right, in his fifty years of prognostications, so what reason can we have for believing him now – can be considered ad hominem. With a track record like that, almost anyone else would be laughed off the stage, yet Mr Clarke appears to defend him. How odd. How very, very odd…
As a postscript, it is delicious how quickly Mr Clarke goes and proves my points! 😁 🙄. Also, as “eco-Annie” has shown, there is some wicked pleasure to be gained by allowing certain people to hang themselves.
Anyway, returning to the original topic, this site does show that climate scepticism is still strong, though it remains sad to see that being sceptical about the whole cAGW scam is still considered a Bad Thing. Perhaps, in our post-science world, scepticism is synonymous with heresy, and any story that begins “Scientists say…” should be treated as the absolute truth, with no possibility of questioning it. All “sceptics” who dare question should be hauled out and burned at the stake – with all emissions being “captured” and properly sequestered, of course.
Like I have said, they are getting desperate, as it looks as though the planet is going to sort itself out, without anything being seen to be done, so claiming the credit for what is going to happen quite naturally may well prove impossible (but, you can bet your bottom dollar, there will be serious attempts to do so!).
I see you still haven't quite grasped the meaning of ad hominem, then.
Erlich was just one author on the extinction paper, and that paper was just one amongst many studies, all of which demonstrate that the assertion more species are being discovered in a day than are lost in a year is weapons-grade bunkum.
stoat
"More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described. In 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one thousandth of one percent described"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
Microbes, Mark, Microbes.
Nature
The scares over coral reefs have been disproved
Looks like the Great Barrier Reef did not get the memo. It's at the beginning of a 'widespread bleaching event', the third in five years. This comes after the 2016 and 2017 events which killed about half of the corals. This one looks to be milder, thankfully, however the reefs are just not getting the recovery times they need …..
Looks like the Great Barrier Reef did not get the memo. It's at the beginning of a 'widespread bleaching event', the third in five years. This comes after the 2016 and 2017 events which killed about half of the corals. This one looks to be milder, thankfully, however the reefs are just not getting the recovery times they need …..
Mar 6, 2020 at 10:24 AM Phil Stoat
So absolutely no reason to panic