Latest from the IPCC

[brenthutch 383]

“Beyond natural variability, the IPCC, much to the disappointment of alarmists, has concluded there is little or no evidence that the following events (table above) are or will be affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial floods, landslides, drought (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms (Met Office please note), tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and marine heatwaves.”

They must not have gotten the “climate crisis” memo

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Page-90_-from-IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

[brenthutch 383]

Nobody wishes to opine on the false narrative of “climate crisis”?

[winsor 186]

Hey, I'm scared.  Isn't that enough?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Nobody wishes to opine on the false narrative of “climate crisis”?

I also thought the opioid crisis was bullshit but now that I'm out I see it differently.

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I also thought the opioid crisis was bullshit but now that I'm out I see it differently.

Where does this notion of “climate crisis” come from?  The globe warms a few hundredth of a degree and folks set their hair on fire.  All of the ills that are supposed to accompany this slight, and in all likelihood natural, warming have failed to manifest. Do we really believe a slightly longer growing season is an existential threat to humanity?

[Erroll 49]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

folks set their hair on fire

Wouldn't that add to the already rising temperature??

[lippy 771]

30 minutes ago, Erroll said:

Wouldn't that add to the already rising temperature??

Maybe, but a temporary spike due to flaming follicles is more akin to a weather event and should not be conflated with a changing climate.

[tkhayes 126]

18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Beyond natural variability, the IPCC, much to the disappointment of alarmists, has concluded there is little or no evidence that the following events (table above) are or will be affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial floods, landslides, drought (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms (Met Office please note), tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and marine heatwaves.”

They must not have gotten the “climate crisis” memo

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Page-90_-from-IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

you are linking to a single page of a document that looks like it has literally hundreds of pages?  and basing your claim on that single page?

research much?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

9 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

you are linking to a single page of a document that looks like it has literally hundreds of pages?  and basing your claim on that single page?

research much?

From a site that has less credibility than something like Western Journal or Breitbart, no less.

[wmw999 2,122]

13 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

you are linking to a single page of a document that looks like it has literally hundreds of pages?  and basing your claim on that single page?

research much?

It's hard work to find the right page among all the ones saying something different

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,623]

Although  

You've chosen to ignore content by brenthutch.

I gather he posted something from a site well known for distortions and plain old falsehoods.

Best to ignore him.

Meanwhile, in weather news, it looks like next week we'll have record highs for the date in the midwest and eastern US.  We've already had anomalously low snowfall for the season.

 

[lippy 771]

27 minutes ago, kallend said:

Although  

You've chosen to ignore content by brenthutch.

I gather he posted something from a site well known for distortions and plain old falsehoods.

Best to ignore him.

Meanwhile, in weather news, it looks like next week we'll have record highs for the date in the midwest and eastern US.  We've already had anomalously low snowfall for the season.

 

We’ve got a high of 93 forecast for Monday here in North TX…in late fucking February 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Where does this notion of “climate crisis” come from?  The globe warms a few hundredth of a degree and folks set their hair on fire.  All of the ills that are supposed to accompany this slight, and in all likelihood natural, warming have failed to manifest. Do we really believe a slightly longer growing season is an existential threat to humanity?

You won't find salvation in whatsupwiththat.com any sooner than my Christian friends will find salvation in their bibles. It seems to me that you prefer closed systems like the army or just living locally where change and disorder are rarely perceived and never desired. I could advise you again to get out and travel as far and wide as you can, with a good dose of living on the water included, and see if that affects your worldview but I won't. Mainly because while I am convinced that humans are warming the planet outside of natural variation and with long term negative consequences, I'm also convinced that in the absence of an external variable, like nicey nice aliens who speak fluent moron stopping by to help, we're probably fucked no matter what so at this point prudence dictates that we just party on.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, tkhayes said:

you are linking to a single page of a document that looks like it has literally hundreds of pages?  and basing your claim on that single page?

research much?

It’s called a summary 

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You won't find salvation in whatsupwiththat.com any sooner than my Christian friends will find salvation in their bibles. It seems to me that you prefer closed systems like the army or just living locally where change and disorder are rarely perceived and never desired. I could advise you again to get out and travel as far and wide as you can, with a good dose of living on the water included, and see if that affects your worldview but I won't. Mainly because while I am convinced that humans are warming the planet outside of natural variation and with long term negative consequences, I'm also convinced that in the absence of an external variable, like nicey nice aliens who speak fluent moron stopping by to help, we're probably fucked no matter what so at this point prudence dictates that we just party on.

As time passes the Chicken Little scenarios are increasingly becoming less and less likely, according to the IPCC. If you wish to stand on a street corner donning a sandwich board with “the end is near” printed in bold letters, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend your right to do so.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

As time passes the Chicken Little scenarios are increasingly becoming less and less likely, according to the IPCC. If you wish to stand on a street corner donning a sandwich board with “the end is near” printed in bold letters, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend your right to do so.

But I don't and said so. It's not that it's not real it's that not enough people worldwide give enough of a shit to fix the problem in real time. We take recycling to the curb while in Asia barge loads of toxic trash goes overboard; the list goes on and on and includes hypocritical liberal DZO's who burn huge amounts of Jet-A to support their sailing habit. For me, how near we are to the end is less important than how near to the end I am. Again, I think we're plain fucked so, if you like, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend your right to be wrong but we're gonna be drinking, so you know.

[tkhayes 126]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s called a summary 

nowhere on that page it there a title calling that a 'summary'.  Try again.  Link to the entire document please.....   you're the one that posted it - let's see the entire thing.

[tkhayes 126]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s called a summary 

It's one 'Table 12.12', assuming a chapter 12 and likely 11 other tables, figures, drawings, diagrams or whatever.  Link to it all please.

[ryoder 1,384]

6 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

It's one 'Table 12.12', assuming a chapter 12 and likely 11 other tables, figures, drawings, diagrams or whatever.  Link to it all please.

Link to full report is 3rd from the top. All 2400 pages of it:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/

[tkhayes 126]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s called a summary 

Never mind, as usual, someone else is doing your work for you https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

Executive summary is page 1770 as is ACTUALLY a summary, hence why they called it 'Executive Summary'.  It says nothing about what you claimed in your first post.  In fact, the executive summary pretty much contradicts everything you said in several paragraphs and comes to completely opposite conclusions that you managed to derive.

You do realize that taking a single page from a document that has at a minimum over 1800 pages to make a case is the very definition of cherry-picking and is also the near perfect example of bad research and incorrect conclusions.

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

20 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

Never mind, as usual, someone else is doing your work for you https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

Executive summary is page 1770 as is ACTUALLY a summary, hence why they called it 'Executive Summary'.  It says nothing about what you claimed in your first post.  In fact, the executive summary pretty much contradicts everything you said in several paragraphs and comes to completely opposite conclusions that you managed to derive.

You do realize that taking a single page from a document that has at a minimum over 1800 pages to make a case is the very definition of cherry-picking and is also the near perfect example of bad research and incorrect conclusions.

 

Now, now TK, 2400 pages is like 10 copies of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire or every Taylor Swift tune about young love gone bad. A fast reader would take 40 hours to read all of that, more if they were humming along. Methodology is what's important and I can assure you that Brent reached the correct conclusion.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Brent reached the correct conclusion

Brent did reach the correct conclusion no doubt. But then he looked and found a way to have fun posting a page and commenting in a way sure to get a reaction from our corps of reactionaries. Again.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

37 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Brent did reach the correct conclusion no doubt. But then he looked and found a way to have fun posting a page and commenting in a way sure to get a reaction from our corps of reactionaries. Again.

Brent is not trivial. He posts on what he believes as opposed to farming the site for things to post on just to stay relevant. I do not think he's a troll, I just think he's speaking to an audience that is not us. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Brent is not trivial. He posts on what he believes as opposed to farming the site for things to post on just to stay relevant. I do not think he's a troll, I just think he's speaking to an audience that is not us. 

I believe you are half wrong. He is a believer, but he is playing us. Either that or he is stupid which I do not think is the case.

[kallend 1,623]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Brent is not trivial. He posts on what he believes as opposed to farming the site for things to post on just to stay relevant. I do not think he's a troll, I just think he's speaking to an audience that is not us. 

His posts perfectly fit the definition of trolling.  Of course he's a troll.