U.N. climate report shows civilization is at stake if we don’t act now

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Also refer to the 1979 Charney report.

The fact is that the scientific consensus at the time was that the Earth would continue to warm. This myth that we were going to enter an ice age was almost exclusively manufactured by the media. This myth likely got kick started from Reid Bryson's "human volcano" theory which was immediately and summarily rejected by the scientific community at the time.

 

I wonder if you're referring to Reid Bryson's "human volcano" theory. See the post above.

 

"And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."

The story observed – accurately – that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude.

Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

As I said there were claims of a coming Ice Age, and yes they were false, that's the point.

 

Yes, there were claims. Yes, they were false. Yes, the scientific community overwhelmingly rejected them. My point is that if there is blame to be handed out for this then it falls squarely on the media and not scientists.

 

Right. The eastern US has been thoroughly reforested. But, the tropical rainforests are not. That is a problem.

 

I forget the article but it mentioned that in 2007 the IPONU said we had only 5 years or it would be too late and it 2011 The UPONME said we only had 5 years or it would be to late. How convenient that the new deadline just happens to coincide with the Paris Treaty goal of 2030. I call shenanigans. Maybe if they quite making doomsday headlines and then when they pass we are still here they go..OOPS! We have a new deadline that we must meet or we all die and this time we mean it.

They can go **** themselves. Until they grow up I am not going to believe one ****ing thing from them. The sad thing is that I am slowly moving away from believing in global warming not because of arguments from skeptics but because of the outright lies and deliberate misinformation campaigns like "hottest year" when the measurement was .01 degrees warmer and the margin error is .1. For those who are math retarded that means they reported as valid a measurement that was literally 10% of the margin of error. Only climate scientists practice science this way no other scientific field would even consider using a measurement less than the margin of error as evidence.

 

If noone is speaking about raising taxes or implementing smothering regulations, why are the skeptics on here so upset?

I think some people are kinda brainwashed.

Some people keep talking about how things have gotten better, and in some ways they have. For instance, industrial discharge has been essentially cleaned up thanks to the Clean Water Act and the discharge permit system. But, there are a lot of things that are screwed up still. Namely the runoff from industrial agriculture. These concentrated animal feedlot operations CAFOs have manure holding tanks that overflow during heavy rain and floods, like the hurricane in NC. I posted pics earlier. Or, what about the disappearing honey bees and monarchs? What happened to them? Did we spray insecticide and kill the pollinators off too? The list goes on...

 

No there were scientist saying it and then when the numbers didn't comply...........

 

Do you believe that the ocean estuaries are dead zones because of manure runoff?

 

Yes, because I have seen satellite photos of pollution run off. By the way this is why government regulation are a completely crappy way of trying to clean up the environment. Google MMSD milwaukee raw sewage dumping and you will see what I have to put up with from the government in my area. If a farmer or rancher did even .00001% of what the MMSD dumps they would be fined but since its the government doing the dumping its just fine and dandy. The US military also gets away with tons of things that any private citizen or company would NEVER get away with.

To bad you don't hear about it just like you don't hear about the Aquilera aquifer being drained dry or toxic metal pollution in the oceans and so forth because 99% of so called environmentalists are screaming lies about global warming and then wonder why no one believes them when their doom and gloom predictions are constantly being changed when they don't happen.

Its time to focus on stuff we CAN fix right now and MY number one issue by far is ocean pollution. Everything else is a distant second.

 

Ocean acidification is caused by the ocean being too acidic, not from too much nitrogen and phosphates. The dead zones are something called eutrophication, which is when the oxygen gets depleted due to the significant increase in algae caused by the manure runoff. Acidification is actually caused by too much carbon in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs it and it changes the ph.

 

and much of that has been overblown

Q. There have been many reports by environmental groups in the U.S. claiming that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed at a frightening pace. Many conflicting statistics are given concerning the alleged rate of destruction — 4 million hectares per year, 8 million hectares per year, 50,000 acres per day, etc. What are the facts and where are these statistics coming from?

A. A good example of this is the report released at the Earth Summit by the FAO [United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization]. FAO claims that the world tropical deforestation rate is 16.9 million hectares per year. FAO has up to the present been still using their discredited 8 million hectares per year rate for deforestation in Brazil. But when pressed at the summit they conceded to the 2.1 million hectares annually that the INPE, the Brazilian national space agency, has asserted is the real rate. This is an admission that they were inflating the deforestation rate by nearly 300 percent.

But they also said that deforestation for all of South America is 6.9 million hectares annually, which raises an obvious problem. Since Brazil has 70 percent of South America's tropical forests, it would be incredible to suggest that other countries are deforesting at the levels necessary for the FAO figures to be valid. If you subtract the 2.1 million [Brazilian hectares] from the [FAO's] 6.9 million, you have 4.8 million hectares being cut down annually in the 30 percent of South American tropical forests outside of Brazil. That is far greater than any data shows.

There is a similar problem with their annual 16.9 million hectares statistic for world deforestation. If you subtract Brazil's 2.1 million, then you must ask who deforests the other 14.8 million hectares. When they were asked these questions, the FAO could not answer. They could not break the numbers down country by country or show any other means by which they arrived at this figure......

Q. What are the aggregate totals and rates of deforestation that have been verified?

A. We still have surveys ongoing and are continuing research on the deforestation that took place during the 1978 to 1988 period, but the available data indicate that the peak deforestation cannot possibly have reached the 80,000 square kilometers per year that has often been cited. The data show that the mean annual rate of gross deforestation during the 1978 to 1988 period was 21,130 square kilometers, which amounts to 0.54 percent of the total forest, and it has dropped off dramatically since that peak period. In 1988 to 1989 the annual rate dropped to 17,860 square kilometers, or 0.48 percent. For 1989 to 1990, it was 13,810 square kilometers, for a rate of 0.37 percent annually. For 1990 to 1991, it was down to 11,130 square kilometers, or 0.30 percent.

The total Brazilian Amazonia deforestation is about 426,000 square kilometers, or about 10 to 11 percent of the forest. That includes very old deforestation that has occurred over the past couple hundred years, although most of that has taken place in the last 20 years. Now, that is a very large area, larger than the area of Germany, so I don't want to minimize that. And some of it was wasteful and ecologically unwise, but not all deforestation is bad, in spite of what the extreme environmentalists may say. People need lumber for homes and construction. We need paper products, agricultural space, living space. It is stupid to say that the forests must be protected against all human use. We can balance human use with sound ecological values.

Q. But isn't that where we get into the problems with "sustainable development, .... biodiversity," and other vague environmentalist concepts?

A. Yes. I was a member of INFORUM, the international scientific organization for sustainable development, before that term became so politicized. Now "sustainability" is defined and used by political and environmental interest groups in ways that have no relation the true ecological meaning.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...-amazing-amazon-deforestation-myths-corrected

 

Sorry missed my edit. I thought you were talking about the reefs and stuff at first didnt click that it was the fresh water meets salt water areas.

 

Go to the USGS website and download the satellite data yourself. There are instructions on how to unzip the files. Get Landsat imagery from 20 years ago and from this year. Compare them side by side.

This is a simple task that anyone can do and its free.

Get back to me after you figure out who is lying.

 

https://landsat.usgs.gov/landsat-data-access

 

Yes sir.
The thing is, what I am talking about here is changing the methods of raising livestock to clean this up. In the process, the soil is regenerated and moisture retention is improved, reducing erosion and runoff, also eliminating CAFOs.

 

And my link addresses that and not interested in a "he's lying or they are lying" contest. The fact is there is no agreement and conflicting studies, reports get overblown for less than scientific reasons.

 

What I am saying is that you don't even have to read any reports. Just download the imagery yourself. You have the answers for free by the USGS and NASA.

 

Hopefully they are doing the same thing in Asia which is the number one hot spot for ocean pollution right now from heavy metals to plastics.

 

There were very few. I read many of the articles from the 70's. Most scientists who were interviewed never actually claimed that an ice age was a likely near term future for Earth. They were all qualified as if-then scenarios such as "if Yellowstone erupted" or "if an asteriod struck". None of those are likely though. One of the few scientists that actually did come right out and make this claim was Reid Bryson and he made the rounds in the media. I'm not saying he was the only scientist making the claim, but he was definitely among rare company and he was shunned by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

 

What is IPONU and UPONME?

And what can you point to in the IPCC special report that you would label as "doomsday"?

 

Say them out loud.

Here is a link to one of those so called doomsday predictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

 

The prediction by Andrew Simms is that we have until about 2017 before we reaching tipping in which avoiding a 2C rise in temperature becomes unlikely. Aside from the obvious fact that it isn't a doomsday prediction it's also not scientific consensus.

What I asking for was an example of a bona-fide doomsday prediction that is well accepted by the scientific consensus. Since the IPCC AR5 report is an adequate proxy for the scientific consensus that might be a good place look.

 

The article writer is quoting the IPCC report from 2007. He is making his claim from the 2007 report.

2 degrees is apparently catastrophic not even my descriptor.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ipcc-climate-change-report-why-2-degree-warming-is-dangerous-2018-10

Then we have one of the signatories and the former UN climate chief and someone from the IPCC claiming we need to do stuff by 2020 or it will be too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts

So you will forgive me if I have a hard time swallowing this when just like in the 90s when I was constantly told the CO2 emitted by the US alone was to much for the earth to handle but now its OK if China emits more than the EU and the US together so long as something is done by 2030.........or 2020............or 2012.

Pick a ****ing year already and stop constantly moving the goal posts. Until then they need to shut the **** up and start paying to more serious issues like ocean pollution which is literally poisoning us to death.

 

HEH: UN Warns Climate Change Will Destroy Earth By 2005.