Remember me
▼ Content

The world's first global no-fly climate conference.


The world's first global no-fly climate conference.13-04-2018 21:12
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
On Earth Day, April 22, 2018, We Don't Have Time will presents the #WeDontHaveTime Climate Conference. Prominent speakers and participants will join this virtual event to be broadcasted live online for everyone. It marks the launch of #WeDontHaveTime and is the first global "no-fly" event of its kind. Keynote speakers include Jeffrey Sachs, Stuart Scott, Pam Pearson, Dennis Meadows and Elizabeth Woodworth and more. Panel members will round-up and discuss and the online audience will be able to join the discussion. We can start a grassroots movement that is difficult to stop. It's time to gather everyone's voices. Please spread word on your network like I did. @ https://wedonthavetime.confetti.events

If not me, who? If not now, when?
13-04-2018 21:45
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Wow! A climate conference that actually walks the talk. They are even using a 'food waste catering firm'! I have to give them credit for not being hypocrites.

I'm not sure that I buy off on the theme that 'We Don't Have Time', since we've been hearing that for over 30 years and none of the predicted disasters have happened.
13-04-2018 22:08
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Yeah, the conference sounds great. What people have actually said for several decades that we can not continue to release carbon dioxide at the rate we do. Soon we'll reach a critical point. Earth will not go under, but it will be major consequences, big parts of the world. If you want to ask someone who knows their numbers, you should ask the insurance companies.
13-04-2018 22:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
Yeah, the conference sounds great. What people have actually said for several decades that we can not continue to release carbon dioxide at the rate we do. Soon we'll reach a critical point. Earth will not go under, but it will be major consequences, big parts of the world. If you want to ask someone who knows their numbers, you should ask the insurance companies.


Seriously? The insurance companies?

Do you think that there may be just a tiny small chance they are jumping on the "increasing natural disaster train" as an excuse to line their pockets with higher premiums?

Sure the insurance companies are paying out more. Stuff is worth more and all the time being built more extravagant. Of course it's going to cost more to replace it.

So please Mr. josephinealbertsdotter, please show us all that natural disasters are actually on the increase. You could even just pick one. Tornadoes, floods, drought, heat waves, hurricanes. Wacha got?
13-04-2018 22:32
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
And maybe United Nations also jumping on "increasing natural disaster train" as an excuse to win a popularity contest with the people. You are welcome to read United Nations articles. But you may not take their numbers seriously.
13-04-2018 22:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
And maybe United Nations also jumping on "increasing natural disaster train" as an excuse to win a popularity contest with the people. You are welcome to read United Nations articles. But you may not take their numbers seriously.



....But I should take the insurance companies seriously?
13-04-2018 22:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
I feel like josephinealbertsdotter is typical hit and run propaganda.

Notice how he says "it's time to gather everyone's voices"?

As if everyone agrees the science is settled and CO2 is going to make hell on Earth. Then he defers a simple question.

I'll ask you once again. Can you show me that any type of natural disaster is on the increase? If you want our voices you'll have to earn them.
13-04-2018 23:12
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.
14-04-2018 00:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


Why are all your suggested sites .org?
Attached image:

14-04-2018 01:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

While Greenman would NOT look at this it does answer many questions. I don't agree with some of it but the general trend is correct.
14-04-2018 07:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


The first site is from the United Nations, which also created the IPCC. Not exactly an unbiased source.

The second site is from insurance companies, who are certainly willing to capitalize on insurance rates. Not exactly an unbiased source.

The third site is from Oxford University, who is well known for buying into the Church of Global Warming. Not exactly an unbiased source.

NONE of these sites define what a 'disaster' actually is. Does every landslide qualify as a 'disaster'? Washington, Oregon, and California get landslides all the time. Most don't even make the news, or if it does, it's a passing reference when describing some local weather. Certainly no 'disaster'.

Is every wildfire caused by climate? No. Most wildfires are started by Man, either intentionally or unintentionally. They can become more costly if people don't cut back vegetation near their homes or build in wildfire prone areas.

Floods can be caused by additional rain, failure to dredge rivers, poor maintenance of levies, building in areas prone to floods, etc.

May I suggest the idea of a 'disaster' database is rather pointless? The entire thing is nothing but subjective judgement to begin with. Even the 'cost' of 'disasters' is using a value of money that is constantly changing (and become more worthless with time).


The Parrot Killer
14-04-2018 11:00
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
GasGuzzler wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


Why are all your suggested sites .org?


Are you saying that the United Nations is not trustworthy? It is true that it is easier to get .org addresses than .com and that some take advantage of it. But when it comes to organizations, they choose .org because it's an organization. Now I'm interested what you consider is a reliable source.
14-04-2018 11:05
josephinealbertsdotter
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Into the Night wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


The first site is from the United Nations, which also created the IPCC. Not exactly an unbiased source.

The second site is from insurance companies, who are certainly willing to capitalize on insurance rates. Not exactly an unbiased source.

The third site is from Oxford University, who is well known for buying into the Church of Global Warming. Not exactly an unbiased source.

NONE of these sites define what a 'disaster' actually is. Does every landslide qualify as a 'disaster'? Washington, Oregon, and California get landslides all the time. Most don't even make the news, or if it does, it's a passing reference when describing some local weather. Certainly no 'disaster'.

Is every wildfire caused by climate? No. Most wildfires are started by Man, either intentionally or unintentionally. They can become more costly if people don't cut back vegetation near their homes or build in wildfire prone areas.

Floods can be caused by additional rain, failure to dredge rivers, poor maintenance of levies, building in areas prone to floods, etc.

May I suggest the idea of a 'disaster' database is rather pointless? The entire thing is nothing but subjective judgement to begin with. Even the 'cost' of 'disasters' is using a value of money that is constantly changing (and become more worthless with time).


I am interested in what you think, what do you consider an unbiased source. Och hur går dina tankar kring ämnet? And how are your thoughts about the subject?
14-04-2018 14:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


Why are all your suggested sites .org?


Are you saying that the United Nations is not trustworthy? It is true that it is easier to get .org addresses than .com and that some take advantage of it. But when it comes to organizations, they choose .org because it's an organization. Now I'm interested what you consider is a reliable source.


There is so much propaganda out there, from both sides, that it can be difficult to trust any source. When I'm looking for facts and read opinion, I throw it out.
I don't want anyone's opinion, I'll make up my own mind.

Your original claim was that the globe is warming and natural disasters are getting more frequent and more intense, thus more costly....correct?

I decided to start with hurricanes. Fair?

I searched through a little mud but soon found this site. http://wx.graphics/tropical/

Looks pretty straight forward and gives links to each storm used to compile all the graphs. There is NO written article, no opinion and no propaganda. Just the stats. If you disagree, you can cross check it with the National Hurricane Center. They also have a great data base of tropical systems.

Here's one graph from the page. Not exactly a good look for Loyds of London as they raise insurance premiums.
Attached image:

14-04-2018 17:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
GasGuzzler wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter wrote:
That sounds reasonable GasGuzzler. I did some quick googling for you, here are some links to different organizations that show the trend of increased natural disasters over the last century, and it has to do with increased average temperature on Earth. Obviously, not all scientist agree, but the clear majority do.

https://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

I have to go now but I'm happy to continue the discussion with you.


Why are all your suggested sites .org?


Are you saying that the United Nations is not trustworthy? It is true that it is easier to get .org addresses than .com and that some take advantage of it. But when it comes to organizations, they choose .org because it's an organization. Now I'm interested what you consider is a reliable source.


There is so much propaganda out there, from both sides, that it can be difficult to trust any source. When I'm looking for facts and read opinion, I throw it out.
I don't want anyone's opinion, I'll make up my own mind.

Your original claim was that the globe is warming and natural disasters are getting more frequent and more intense, thus more costly....correct?

I decided to start with hurricanes. Fair?

I searched through a little mud but soon found this site. http://wx.graphics/tropical/

Looks pretty straight forward and gives links to each storm used to compile all the graphs. There is NO written article, no opinion and no propaganda. Just the stats. If you disagree, you can cross check it with the National Hurricane Center. They also have a great data base of tropical systems.

Here's one graph from the page. Not exactly a good look for Loyds of London as they raise insurance premiums.


This is actual data. It is verifiable, the instrumentation source is know, the raw data is available, the method of collection is known, the time of collection is known, and the people who collected it are known. It corresponds to the National Hurricane Center data.

You are quite right. There is tons of fake data out there. Like me, you recognize there has to be a higher standard of accepting data then 'just found it on the internet'.

You might try looking through an old thread called 'The Data Mine', where I state my standards for data, which is quite high.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-04-2018 17:55
15-04-2018 10:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1196)
josephinealbertsdotter,

Can you explain, in your own words, how a slightly warmer world (use the IPCC's numbers of +3.4 c over now by 2100) will cause anything bad to happen?

I need the mechanism between the increased temperatures and the bad thing. It has to be more costly for any local council that has traffic lights to sort out than it's traffic lights budget and be supported by some sort of science. Any science you cite must be quoted from to illustrate the support. I will not be fobbed off with too long to read irrelivance.

Edited on 15-04-2018 10:04
15-04-2018 23:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Tim the plumber wrote:
josephinealbertsdotter,

Can you explain, in your own words, how a slightly warmer world (use the IPCC's numbers of +3.4 c over now by 2100) will cause anything bad to happen?

I need the mechanism between the increased temperatures and the bad thing. It has to be more costly for any local council that has traffic lights to sort out than it's traffic lights budget and be supported by some sort of science. Any science you cite must be quoted from to illustrate the support. I will not be fobbed off with too long to read irrelevance.


One could believe the True Believers idea that this means higher temperatures all over the world but that is not the way it works. It simply means more days per year of warmer weather rather than cooler conditions.

But studies by real experts tell us that the idea I had long ago is actually true. That the majority of long term temperature records comes from areas that had high urban growth. So there is no competent heat records and those who we feel we can trust show no heating at all. But he is not willing to say there is no heating because as nightmare says - there are insufficient thermometer records from around the world to use these records as anything more than hints.

The satellite record is only 39 years long now but it doesn't show any heating.

We have too many True Believers that are unwilling to believe that it takes several centuries for the world to recover from the little ice age. Melting ice now only means that the world's temperature has returned to normal.




Join the debate The world's first global no-fly climate conference.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Adaptation of inland fisheries and aquaculture to climate change conference111-05-2017 01:00
Energy Action Fuel Poverty and Climate Action Conference 2017109-02-2017 22:20
Articles
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact