Why is the climate changing. (Page 209)

GeraldtheGnome: Bonzono’s last two messages are entirely wrong. That one should grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt brat five year old. Childish tantrums by an adult just proves that Bonzono has lost the argument here.

ghostgeek: I don't give a shit about getting the message out. Cold or heat, both are killers.

GeraldtheGnome: There is no need to swear and if it is hot or cold then deaths have so far occurred because of that due to certain factors. Not every instance of when it has been hot or cold in the past has even one death resulted from it.

ghostgeek: I'm utterly pissed, so swearing comes natural. And trying to make out that heat or cold won't carry you off is like shitting in the face of a force ten gale. It doesn't stack up, but you're at liberty to sit in a freezer in your underpants to see if I'm correct.

GeraldtheGnome: I never told you that, not every example of where it’s hot or cold has brought about even one death, if it’s hotter or colder than usual though makes it more likely that death will be brought about due to it. At worst deaths will occur due to temperature extremes during a day or during a long time that has buggered up the climate. There was no need for you to swear and the word and still doesn’t look right at the front of a sentence. Nothing would have been wrong if you made your first two sentences into one just by using the word and to join the two of them up.

ghostgeek: I told you I'm pissed, having been on the cider, so no lectures!

GeraldtheGnome: I didn’t lecture you, I just told you what is. You just went off subject there. Whether you are drunk or not there still is no need for swearing. Just calm down, you were right about some things when you were on the subject of this forum after all.

ghostgeek: Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC's two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off.

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

[ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 ]

GeraldtheGnome: Carbon taxes were used here, they did nothing except make things dearer, putting a tax on air or for that matter on literally nothing always was, still is and will be a waste of time. If they and you worried about real problems like air pollution and air quality rather than wasted any time or effort or money on imaginary problems like the myth that certain gas emissions are causing global warming, which is always passed off under the misleading term climate change that in reality refers to far more than just some imagined current temperature rise caused by humans, then everyone would be better off.

It’s extremely arrogant and ignorant to think that a useless tax, wasting billions of dollars or more, actually far more than that, to governments of others countries, useless climate conventions that really don’t centre on the real problems as well as other measures to counter a problem that is in reality imaginary and therefore what you just showed me is still fear mongering propaganda, it’s manipulative, it’s deceiving, it’s far left socialist agenda material. By the way for those that just keep thinking that I think that socialism means only something about the far left, like on French user does, then they are wrong just like the French user was the last time that he came out with that. I look at things for and against you think is true and what I am for. At present you ignore everything that myself and anyone else on here comes out with because you are certain that what you think is true. There is neither global warming or global cooling happening right now.

Here’s the thing, there actually has to be evidence that proves that global warming or global cooling is happening right now. From everything that I have seen or heard that has been presented by you and by others on the internet and everywhere else that I have seen or heard anything about the subject not once has anyone proven that global warming or global cooling is happening right now. All that I have been presented by you and anyone else on the subject are merely opinion pieces, that includes what I looked at by anyone from NASA and by everyone else that someone has shown what they have mistaken as proving that they are right. Delusional thoughts, confirmation bias, conspiracy theories even that have no basis on anything realistic and religious like bias is all that has been on display. You have the burden of proof over what you pessimistically/unrealistically think is true.

If I am to be convinced by you then providence the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that what you think is true is true. It’s not up to myself and others on here to disprove what you are so certain about. You have to prove your own beliefs to yourself if you can before telling people that something is true, I can show you opinion pieces just like you have, it wouldn’t help either of us though. I don’t have the burden of proof, you do. Without you showing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt then I can quite fairly just continue on here as I have done while you provide me with more opinion pieces. We will be going around in circles due to your own circular reasoning and logic in other words.

GeraldtheGnome: Remember that elsewhere you have told me that Moses did exist, something that the level headed Biblical scholars disagree with you about due to many reasons that you have overlooked, you also told me that Josephus wrote this and that in the first century yet you never looked and listened to everything for and against what you heard and saw about everything that can be found about both of them. You showed religious like bias and confirmation bias there as you have done here. You decided that what you believe is certainly true without finding out if anything that you believe about any of that is true.

A person who misleads you by using the term climate change as only meaning global warming is a an unreliable source for a start. That one didn’t even have the guts to use the words ‘global warming is occurring right now’, what that one did imply though was that global warming is occurring right now. Is it though ? That one told you that it certainly is occurring right now without ever knowing beyond reasonable doubt that there is evidence that proves that. That person instead came out with that (at the time that one made the opinion piece) that it is occurring right now without ever checking if it is true. You in turn did exactly the same thing when you showed that one’s unproven article.

bonzono: "Neither of you, even with the links (including those Bonzono is guessing I never paid attention to), provide evidence that proves everything that you both think is true"

except I did.
I provided you with data from NOAA.

Access it and then continue. Don't pretend I've not given you data. I have.

It's up to you - do you access the data I've given you?
or do you lie and pretend I havent?

are you .. a liar, gerry?

GeraldtheGnome: Stop being a troll, stop repeating my own words and actually think properly before you even type another word. How much do you really think is right with your last response to me ? Don’t give me the answer, answer it for yourself and find out how much of what you told me is correct.

bonzono: gerry,
you've lied in saying I havent given you links to relevant data.

so - again.
Will you access the data or not?

it's a yes/no question.

GeraldtheGnome: Wrong. Anyway doomsday/dodgy science relies on data of what is believed to be true, well put together data relies on what, beyond beyond reasonable doubt, is evidence of what is proven to be true. Your message meant nothing and your believed to be certainly true information is far from convincing. You have provided me with doomsday/dodgy scientific data.

You are using an odd form of circular reasoning.

bonzono: so you've accessed the data but you've claimed it's wrong.
That's fine, you can say it's wrong..


Identify the error.

GeraldtheGnome: Only one error ? I never claimed that anything is wrong, I have though stated that many things are wrong. The problem is though that you have failed with your data and with everything else that you have brought forth that of evidence that proves that you and everything that you have presented to me is true beyond a reasonable doubt. To myself out loud off this site I might say to myself that this and that of yours is wrong. If you already had the 'smoking gun' that proved that global warming is happening right now and you presented that to me then we both would not be going around in circles. You have the burden of proof.

I can tell you that this and that is wrong as many times as I want, it is you that has to show me how and why I am wrong, it's not the other way around. Once again your message is completely wrong. The only way that you can work out whatever is so about it is by looking at everything for and against what you believe because otherwise your reasons for supporting anything about it is just merely on your 'gut' feeling. Just providing data is not a guarantee that the data proves what you think is true.

You have not brought about evidence that can be tested and proven, you however demand that those against your beliefs, even though you have the burden of proof, should bring forth evidence that can be tested and proven to be true. I thereby conclude that you are not one for thinking that bringing about evidence that proves that you are right or at least does suggest that you might be right is important. Instead of that you supply data and other things that do not prove that you are right or that you are at least possibly right.

ghostgeek: Gerald, you have the burden of proof when you challenge what is generally believed to be the case.

bonzono: "I never claimed that anything is wrong, I have though stated that many things are wrong. "
sure, you claim there are many things wrong. identify any one thing.
Identify anything.

"The problem is though that you have failed with your data"
where's the failure? idenify any one thing.


"it is you that has to show me how and why I am wrong,"
the data shows you're wrong . There is rapid global heating.

"Once again your message is completely wrong. T"
where? identify any one error.

"You have not brought about evidence that can be tested and proven"
yes I have, the data I showed you is shown to be valid and similarly measured at multiple independent stations and areas by different independent institutes, all around the world.

"You have not brought about evidence that can be tested and proven"
yes I have, and it's been tested throughout the literature.

"you however demand that those against your beliefs,"
The data shows it to be correct.

" even though you have the burden of proof"
I provided data - i.e. proof. The burden is met.



So have I provided proof? - yes
Is the evidence corrorborated independently? - yes
Does it show rapid global warming? - yes

do you disagree with the data? apparently.


why?

Despite me asking, you've not provided a single example of anything you claim to be wrong, despite you saying 'multiple' things are wrong. It should be easy to pick out one thing from those 'multiple'.

If you cant provide a single example of anything that is wrong with those data, then it's clear you're simply trolling - and cluelessly at that.

GeraldtheGnome: All of that except is incorrect in every way, well the exception being that I looked at the insufficient data and that data is not evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that global warming is occurring. It doesn’t even provide me with a reason that either of you are right. The people who make the affirmative claim of certainty that global warming is occurring are the people who have the burden of proof, you two therefore are the ones with that claim and therefore you two are the ones with the burden of proof, not me. I am not making a claim that global warming is occurring or that global cooling is occurring.

You two are rather hypocrites since you both tell religious people to prove that there is a god currently around somewhere, you tell them that they have the burden of proof yet when it comes to both of you on any religious forum or science forum, including this global warming forum, then you put it onto the people such as me to ‘positive’ claim of certainty that global warming is occurring, you both did yet both of you don’t realize that you have the burden of proof. All I really have to do is tell either of you is to come out with what proves that global warming is occurring or at least show me a reason that either of you might be right. The religious kind of beliefs on the subject gives me no reason to agree with you.

The data given to me is no better than a Bible passage, it’s just a claim, a book on the entire subject if it has no evidence that proves that it is true is no better than any Bible. The worship by both of you of any scientist who has not brought forth any evidence that proves that global warming is occurring is just as bad as those who worship any god that they haven’t proven beyond reasonable doubt is around right now. You are both using circular reasoning and Bonzono is showing quite a lot of similarities on here to Bob and Zeffur/Bac77. The Horsehoe Theory relates to Bonzono, Bob and Zeffur, as strongly as those two oppose Bonzono and as much as she, if that one really is a she, oppose them, they have similarities to each other. All I so far have by both of you is that you are both right because you both believe that you are right, it at least so far is not based on what either of you have proven to me about your global warming beliefs.

To Ghostgeek. What you think is generally believed by most, which is what you believe, means nothing without proof that global warming is occurring right now, something which no one, including you has provided to me. Generally believed ? Is there really any valid reason to think that that is true ? At the moment I live in a country where people are told that this and that, including global warming, is generally believed to be true. That is something worth testing out, you too live in a country where you are told what people generally believe even about global warming claims. Test it out and find out what is actually generally believed. If 100 people believe something then is there even a guarantee that even one of them is right even if it’s about any global warming claim of yours ?

GeraldtheGnome: No one against the claims by either of you owe either of you anything on here. That means I am not a troll on here. Prove beyond reasonable doubt what is true or at least give me a reason to think that either of you might be right about any global warming beliefs.

bonzono: so .. you ask for data. it's given.
you dont access the data, you have no idea of its contents, and you declare the data is wrong.

you cant show how or why you think the data you never looked at is wrong.

you're a troll.

ghostgeek: Dozens of longstanding temperature records tumbled across Australia during a warm July.

Across the country maximum temperatures were overall about 1.2C above the long-term averages in July and all capital cities except Canberra were warmer than average, Bureau of Meteorology data shows.

Many weather stations in Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart clocked their highest July temperatures on record, including some dating back more than 140 years. Across the country it was the ninth warmest July for average temperatures, measured across day and night.
An image from Thredbo’s snow cam showing the Basin ski run with a few patches of snow at the start of the Australian ski season.
Dry run: Australia’s ski season kicks off without snow and El Niño may be to blame
Read more

Experts say Australia’s warmer winter is not being directly caused by the heatwaves and weather systems in the northern hemisphere over the same period. But Australian winters – and temperatures across the globe – have been getting hotter because of global heating.

[ www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2023/aug/16/climate-crisis-global-warming-july-weather-australia ]

bonzono: ghostgeek,
you've made the mistake I did.

you've given facts to someone suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Gerry will not access the data.

Even if he accidently does, the cognitive dissonance will not permit his brain to parse and interpret it.


People like Gerry are part of the problem - they're unable to read information, unable to connect dots - both literally and figuratively.

To people like gerry, the problem does not exist - so they dont think anything needs to be done - ergo, they do nothing and the problem gets worse.

People like gerry are a failure in human intellectual evolution - he will be weeded out, hopefully he wont be taking the rest of us with him.

GeraldtheGnome: You have not even worked out if I have or have not looked at it. You though have decided what is so there, a repetitive habit of yours. Use evolution as it was meant to be used from now on and in general chose better suited words from now on. I don’t want to see one error filled message after another. Bullying about your global warming beliefs is not the way to win an argument.

Once again you have made one claim after another about me and about your pet subject and not proven any of it.