www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/sorry-for-misleading-you-but-i-cried-wolf-on-the-global-dangers-of-climate-change/news-story/0079baab2757686b0bffc014de064676?fbclid=IwAR3Ttbxl-31RsKtm2F7vQoOCgekR9ccPj8OzaMOKvLzadbh_qLGl8Zir3pI
Interesting commentary from a committed environmentalist, upcoming IPCC reviewer and testifier for the US Congress.
I wonder if the tear downs will be ad hominem, claim sensationalism to sell a book or actually address what he is saying.
non paywalled: environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare?fbclid=IwAR3V5NDIGsfHaR0Uqkc6HKGMBVdZGSN9GpMdBAvUSkHswpCMCj4xal91GyM
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/sorry-for-misleading-you-but-i-cried-wolf-on-the-global-dangers-of-climate-change/news-story/0079baab2757686b0bffc014de064676?fbclid=IwAR3Ttbxl-31RsKtm2F7vQoOCgekR9ccPj8OzaMOKvLzadbh_qLGl8Zir3pI
Interesting commentary from a committed environmentalist, upcoming IPCC reviewer and testifier for the US Congress.
I wonder if the tear downs will be ad hominem, claim sensationalism to sell a book or actually address what he is saying.
Obviously one of the 3%. No, 2%. No, 1% 
It's behind a paywall... Copy and past something interesting from it?
I suspect this is what he's talking about
environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
By the way, it is interesting that while the ABC pushes the line that the climate change induced drought caused the bush fires, they never made the connection with their other report that scientists have recently showed that the recent droughts were nothing historically significant and indeed, on past climate records, we can expect much worse, not at all due to climate change.
acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
Obviously one of the 3%. No, 2%. No, 1%
It's behind a paywall... Copy and past something interesting from it?
Sorry, ive edited to include a non paywalled version.
I don't suscribe to The Australian, but every now and then I get an article not blocked.
Select to expand quoteTamble said..
I suspect this is what he's talking about
environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
By the way, it is interesting that while the ABC pushes the line that the climate change induced drought caused the bush fires, they never made the connection with their other report that scientists have recently showed that the recent droughts were nothing historically significant and indeed, on past climate records, we can expect much worse, not at all due to climate change.
acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/
Thanks. I was getting around to googling the title...
I think a bunch of people here brought up the "not statistically significant" nature of the fires, only to be shouted down as climate denialists...
WTF -- it's Shellenberger?! I couldn't be more surprised if it was Cook...!
We do not accept his apology
We need all climate alarmist to apologise and a yearly national apology day
On this day alarmist will have take a knee Infront of anyone with a brain and beg for forgiveness.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
We do not accept his apology
We need all climate alarmist to apologise and a yearly national apology day
On this day alarmist will have take a knee Infront of anyone with a brain and beg for forgiveness.
Just guessing, you probably won't find anyone kneeling in front of you.
Select to expand quoteUncleBob said..TonyAbbott said..
We do not accept his apology
We need all climate alarmist to apologise and a yearly national apology day
On this day alarmist will have take a knee Infront of anyone with a brain and beg for forgiveness.
Just guessing, you probably won't find anyone kneeling in front of you.
Err.......Rhode scholar.....errr
Take a knee and I'll forgive you
He makes some big claims. For example, according to his Australian article, among other listed falsehoods, he claims " Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"".
Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I haven't read his book, but that is a big disparity. Somebody is making stuff up? The trouble I find with all this complex science stuff, who to believe?
Hopefully this book may lead to a mass extinction of idiot climate alarmists.
Still waiting for the 2M sea level rise, melted planet etc, both sides have been making stuff up.
The fundamental problem remains population, the virus is doing it's best on that.
Now the latest contemporary issue can be tackled, BTM, how about a book
about the real story here. I will probably be banned by suggesting a new cause
for humanity to consider. BCM, yes you heard it here first, black crime matters.
I'd be hesitant to believe a word from the WWF or the BCRF or any other "charity" that has a CEO sitting comfortably on six figures while maybe five percent of donated funds go to the actual cause.
Select to expand quoteMarvin said..
He makes some big claims. For example, according to his Australian article, among other listed falsehoods, he claims " Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"".
Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I haven't read his book, but that is a big disparity. Somebody is making stuff up? The trouble I find with all this complex science stuff, who to believe?
I think it comes down to the alarmist reporting and fear over facts and the purposefull twisting of wording and messaging to give an impression things are very different to what they really are.
For example your post statement "Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:" is wrong. That article talks about population loss, not species extintion. I am willing to bet that species extintion is what you got from reading the article, rather than population decline, and that is the problem as thats what they wanted you to read.
I doubt anyone would argue that humans are impacting and causing change to environments that is causing species extinction above the normal "background" rate that would be expected. However a mass extinction means more that 75% of the worlds species are gone and we are no were near that.
There is also good argument that the efforts we are making now to conserve and protect habitats and species is also making a huge difference in slowing or reversing the population decline and increased rate of species loss.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
WTF -- it's Shellenberger?! I couldn't be more surprised if it was Cook...!
Shellenberger is big, when someone like him speaks out about staying silent becuase of the negative stigma of telling the truth it may well start a "me too" movement in the environmentalists. Realising that the lies actually hurt true environmental efforts is a big driver.
Cook is not a scientist or an environmentalist. His is a political crusade that he makes money, fame and power from. If he switches, it will be for those reasons.
The debate seems to have moved on a bit in recent years. The vast majority of people seem to accept the reality of human-induced warming, but as to what the consequences are, that remains very sketchy, along with how to deal with it.
The other big realisation that seems to be dawning on most is that so-called renewables are a big fraud.
when climate change displaces 40 million people from Bangledesh to become refuges over the next 100 years, the few thousand refuges being argued access to Australia now will seem like a drop in the ocean. Don't want to alarm anybody but that is a scenario.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
The vast majority of people seem to accept the reality of human-induced warming.
See even that is interesting. Human induced warming does seem to be relatively well accepted, perhaps overaccepted. I think its fair to say most experts believe there is some contribution going on, but no one has a grasp on how much or if its even CO2 predominately driving that contribution.
No one bothers much to look at other causes. The IPCC has a charter that only allows it to look at the negative consequences of human induced warming and that is what it reports.
There is a lot of people that still believe there is solid evidence that CO2 is responsible for all the warming we are seeing. Especially our younger population, as all they are fed is these doomsday stories.
Select to expand quotePoida said..
when climate change displaces 40 million people from Bangledesh to become refuges over the next 100 years, the few thousand refuges being argued access to Australia now will seem like a drop in the ocean. Don't want to alarm anybody but that is a scenario.
There is no realistic scenario that has an outcome even close to that.
^^ Even if it were true, would they not be more likely to move north to Siberia, where areas far bigger than Australia would have been transformed from frozen tundra into arable land? I'm not saying this is a favourable outcome, but merely that there are all sorts of potential consequences and they aren't all negative.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
^^ Even if it were true, would they not be more likely to move north to Siberia, where areas far bigger than Australia would have been transformed from frozen tundra into arable land? I'm not saying this is a favourable outcome, but merely that there are all sorts of potential consequences and they aren't all negative.
Or the Sahara. The Sahara greens up and fills with lakes every 20,000 years when the earth's spin axis precesses so sun shines on the northern hemisphere in summer when it's closest to the sun. Extra Co2 in the atmosphere could kick off this regular sequence a bit earlier in the cycle. Who knows?
Interesting indeed. My father-in-law left a paper copy at our place for me. I still haven't read it all the way through, but it was certainly enough to grab the attention. As soon as I get a chance I'll read all of it. I must say I'm suspicious that it's in The Australian, a known climate denier. I'd be even more interested if it was in something more centered, though I'm not sure we have anything that isn't left or right at the moment.
I think it was originally published in Forbes; who were forced to delete by a cancel culture pile in
There is probably big money to be made if you're a "lifetime environmentalist" and then "switch sides" so to speak, which is grounds for suspicion but that doesn't mean he is insincere. He is certainly generating a lot of publicity and selling a lot of books.
The climate change cult is dying a slow natural death. All the followers have changed from being Facebook climate experts to being Facebook coronavirus experts.
When the cult's promoters realize nobody is listening anymore, they'll fade away.
Greta T. will have to go back to school, she's a good two years behind her classmates now.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
There is probably big money to be made if you're a "lifetime environmentalist" and then "switch sides" so to speak, which is grounds for suspicion but that doesn't mean he is insincere. He is certainly generating a lot of publicity and selling a lot of books.
Yes always suspicious. There are a few notable examples in this regard, some very successful. One wonders if they "switch" just to make a quick buck.
I agree that both camps overstate their case.
The climate change deniers say there's virtually nothing that needs to be done and the climate change warriors say it's an emergency.
It's like Tony Abbott's lie about a budget emergency, which turned out to be total bollocks or Thungberg's hysterical claim that her future has been stolen.
The problem with the way Paradox frames the news is that it is constructed to make it sound like we're already doing too much to reduce emissions, whereas the fact is, we're doing way too little.
This is the agenda of pro-nuclear people and pro-fossil fuel people. Do anything to weaken resolve to act.
Paradox also ignores the fact that the scientist clearly states that we need to do more to take action, but that the politics and spin around climate change is exaggerated. It doesn't mean the scientist thinks we need to do less.
Select to expand quoteGreenPat said....I must say I'm suspicious that it's in The Australian, a known climate denier. I'd be even more interested if it was in something more centered, ...
Yes. The Australian is perhaps the core of climate change denialism in The Australian media.
Every story is framed as "climate change is real but, but, but...."
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole
I agree that both camps overstate their case.
Thungberg's hysterical claim that her future has been stolen.
Has your account been hacked by a fragile old white male ego?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
This is the agenda of pro-nuclear people and pro-fossil fuel people. Do anything to weaken resolve to act.
Paradox also ignores the fact that the scientist clearly states that we need to do more to take action, but that the politics and spin around climate change is exaggerated. It doesn't mean the scientist thinks we need to do less.
How is supporting the safest and lowest CO2 emitting form of energy weakening anyones resolve to reduce CO2 emissions? You are just making anti nuclear noise and framing it somehow as a bad thing to address CO2 emissions.
Which scientists are you referring to? If you want to debate facts then state them, don't wave the "scientists say" flag around as if there is some sort of scientific consensus. We all know there isn't and that is always my key point. We don't know what CO2 is doing to warm the planet and even if the contribution turns out to be measurable there is no evidence that a warmer planet is a bad thing. In fact most of the evidence suggests its a good thing.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Marvin said..
He makes some big claims. For example, according to his Australian article, among other listed falsehoods, he claims " Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"".
Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I haven't read his book, but that is a big disparity. Somebody is making stuff up? The trouble I find with all this complex science stuff, who to believe?
I think it comes down to the alarmist reporting and fear over facts and the purposefull twisting of wording and messaging to give an impression things are very different to what they really are.
For example your post statement "Yet the WWF say more than 50% of all vertebrates have gone extinct since 1970:" is wrong. That article talks about population loss, not species extintion. I am willing to bet that species extintion is what you got from reading the article, rather than population decline, and that is the problem as thats what they wanted you to read.
I doubt anyone would argue that humans are impacting and causing change to environments that is causing species extinction above the normal "background" rate that would be expected. However a mass extinction means more that 75% of the worlds species are gone and we are no were near that.
There is also good argument that the efforts we are making now to conserve and protect habitats and species is also making a huge difference in slowing or reversing the population decline and increased rate of species loss.
Thanks for that correction - yes I misinterpreted the statement.
That said, I'm still alarmed, and I think rightly so. Here's a meta report which provides sobering stats:
Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Quoting that article:"More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century."
On that data - if correct! - it is reasonable to infer a mass extinction is imminent, unless the trends reverse.
its true that climate change is not the main driver (yet). It is suggested to be monoculture and pesticides.
But climate change is a slow moving phenomenon, and we don't know when key tipping points will trigger - like the release of frozen methane in the oceans and tundra, or the decline of the Atlantic warm current (that keeps Europe relatively warm).
It is pretty obvious the earth is warming. Just look at glacial retreat. Close to home, the ocean off WA is 1.5 degrees warmer than average. More broadly, the change in Australia's rainfall patterns are entirely consistent with what the climate models predict.
Human activity is the most likely cause of climate change. (I don't tend to believe what deniers like Plimer say - its not out of our hands).
And so Australia burns - we enter the 'pyrocene':
theconversation.com/california-wildfires-signal-the-arrival-of-a-planetary-fire-age-125972
i think the Thunberg point is that our children will remember this profligate, indulgent, narcissistic generation for that which we are.
We could take action now - there is a choice.
But the reality is that we won't - the smoking gun will come too late for us to really change our behaviour, given the lags. Zooming out, it is what it is. Everything passes, including, this brief era of civil wealth. It's a very thin and fragile veneer.
Select to expand quoteMarvin said..
Thanks for that correction - yes I misinterpreted the statement.
That said, I'm still alarmed, and I think rightly so. Here's a meta report which provides sobering stats:
Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Quoting that article:"More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century."
On that data - if correct! - it is reasonable to infer a mass extinction is imminent, unless the trends reverse.
its true that climate change is not the main driver (yet). It is suggested to be monoculture and pesticides.
But climate change is a slow moving phenomenon, and we don't know when key tipping points will trigger - like the release of frozen methane in the oceans and tundra, or the decline of the Atlantic warm current (that keeps Europe relatively warm).
It is pretty obvious the earth is warming. Just look at glacial retreat. Close to home, the ocean off WA is 1.5 degrees warmer than average. More broadly, the change in Australia's rainfall patterns are entirely consistent with what the climate models predict.
Human activity is the most likely cause of climate change. (I don't tend to believe what deniers like Plimer say - its not out of our hands).
And so Australia burns - we enter the 'pyrocene':
theconversation.com/california-wildfires-signal-the-arrival-of-a-planetary-fire-age-125972
i think the Thunberg point is that our children will remember this profligate, indulgent, narcissistic generation for that which we are.
We could take action now - there is a choice.
But the reality is that we won't - the smoking gun will come too late for us to really change our behaviour, given the lags. Zooming out, it is what it is. Everything passes, including, this brief era of civil wealth. It's a very thin and fragile veneer.
Well thats all very emotive and moving, and people love to read that stuff and buy in to the human caused apocolypse through collective guilt. But I really don't see any evidence that what you are saying is borne out by facts. Everything you have said is either not backed up actual facts or it is irrelevent when discussing mans potential influence on global temperature (which is what I assume you mean when you say climate change).
You mention tipping points. There is no evidence there is any sort of "tipping point" or positive feedbacks in a warming planet. A planet that seems to be pretty cool this year with well above average snow and ice accumulation. Not reading that in the papers anywhere are you?
You say humans are the most likely cause of climate change (global warming). There is no compelling evidence for this. There is no strong evidence that humans are the primary cause of any observed warming let alone the CO2 contribution on its own. Recent studies have indicated that ubanisation and the heat Island effect may be as much of a contributer to any human influence on warming as CO2. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555247/
You mention Australia's rainfall (or droughts most likely as Australias rainfall has actually increased overall) and refer to the recent fires as us entering a "pyrocene" (really??) but again studies are showing that fires are caused by drought and severe droughts and the related fires are pretty standard in Australia over the last 1000years acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/
Personally I think what our children will remember is the huge indoctrination we made on them that producing CO2 is akin to murder and they will look on us as fools for wasting our and thier time and resources on a problem that turned out to be inconsequential compared to many other more pressing environmental and social issues.
^ That's bollocks, like a creationist denying evolution. You should reconsider your sources.
BTW increased snow mass is an artifact of more water in the atmosphere and that's a artifact of more heat.
I'm not going to argue on this. One partial set of 'facts' may be as salient as, or more telling, than mine. That's the trouble with all these complex issues, our bounded understanding means that it's impossible to tell what is right and wrong. So we fall back on our frames and cognitive biases.
All I can say is, from my experience, that 'things are crook in Tallarook'. Yes, it's intuitive - but that's my judgement.
