environment

COP28 kicks off with climate disaster fund victory

13 Comments
By Kate Abnett, Maha El Dahan and Valerie Volcovici

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


13 Comments
Login to comment

But some groups were cautious about celebrating the fund's early adoption, noting there were still unresolved issues including how the fund would be financed in the future.

Not an inconsequential concern, altogether. But another area of contention lises ahead, in that intentions have already been announced to funnel some of the funds towards 'marginalized groups.' But so far, at least, just who those groups are, remains to be firmly established, and has been skipped and shelved, and given a we'll-cross-that-bridge-later treatment. I'm pretty sure that sources of the funds would much prefer sooner than later.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I wonder what the total emissions would be when added together, of all those terribly important people and their entourages, and the media, going to 28 climate conferences, the modest consequences of which could have been arranged over e-mail.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

GBR48Today  09:55 am JST

I wonder what the total emissions would be when added together, of all those terribly important people and their entourages, and the media, going to 28 climate conferences, the modest consequences of which could have been arranged over e-mail.

Please don't ask questions like that. Just sit quietly and accept the wise pronouncements coming from these eminently eminent eminences. You know it makes sense, because they're better than you.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

You know it makes sense, because they're better than you.

No, the conclusions about the importance of climate change are valid because they are proved scientifically, the arguments have weight on their own since they come from valid evidence analyzed scientifically. It does not matter at all who repeats those scientific conclusions, they will not become more or less valid according to who repeats them.

Can you refute the data or methods used to conclude climate change is human activity derived and will have deep negative consequences? if not that means the only rational position to take is to accept these conclusions, even if they are repeated by people you don't like or trust.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

virusrexToday  11:25 am JST

You know it makes sense, because they're better than you.

No, the conclusions about the importance of climate change are valid because they are proved scientifically, the arguments have weight on their own since they come from valid evidence analyzed scientifically. It does not matter at all who repeats those scientific conclusions, they will not become more or less valid according to who repeats them. 

Can you refute the data or methods used to conclude climate change is human activity derived and will have deep negative consequences? if not that means the only rational position to take is to accept these conclusions, even if they are repeated by people you don't like or trust.

I'd take these people seriously if they practiced what they preach. Are you arguing that the science is settled? How sure can you be that all the methods and conclusions you claim are valid? After all, Climategate showed that there is indeed doubt about the mechanisms, cause, and extent of climate change, but they chose to cover it up because the data didn't conform to the narrative.

You can bang on about consensus until the cows come home, but it's essentially a case of what Chomsky called manufactured consent all those years ago. More and more people are figuring this out, but some are too invested in pushing a narrative to tolerate dissent.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I'd take these people seriously if they practiced what they preach.

Again, that is irrelevant, the arguments are the ones you have to listen, not the people that have absolutely no importance in the weight of the arguments.

You are trying to ignore scientific conclusions just because you feel better being in denial of these realities and justify in your mind not changing your behavior, but since you have no actual arguments to do that your excuse is to pretend the people repeating those conclusions magically make them less correct, which of course makes no sense.

If a billionaire is not worried at all about his companies polluting the city you live in, would that mean they are right? because that is what you are arguing.

How sure can you be that all the methods and conclusions you claim are valid?

Because that is what the scientific method is all about, the experts of the whole world agree on those conclusions even when the methods and data are open for anybody to analyze, pretending the whole scientific community of the world is in some kind of conspiracy to hide the "real" situation is simply outside of what is believable. Either the scientific community of the world is wrong or you are, and since you have presented no argument, no scientific criticism, no evidence to support your claim, that means you are the one mistaken.

but it's essentially a case of what Chomsky called manufactured consent all those years ago.

No, it is not, when not a single respected institution of science in the whole world agrees with you that the consensus is not real that means it is, even if you personally don't want to accept it. Nobody is "accepting" anything that is not true, what is happening is that even in countries with deep antiscientific bias of the lowest common denominator as the US people no longer can deny the dangers of climate change nor the role humans have producing it, so year after year more people end up finally accepting the scientists were right.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Again, that is irrelevant, the arguments are the ones you have to listen, not the people that have absolutely no importance in the weight of the arguments.

You are trying to ignore scientific conclusions just because you feel better being in denial of these realities and justify in your mind not changing your behavior, but since you have no actual arguments to do that your excuse is to pretend the people repeating those conclusions magically make them less correct, which of course makes no sense.

Irrelevant, really? We're not just talking about billionaires going to these shindigs. There are climate scientists and people from environmental NGOs at these COP shows who are telling us to accept "the science" while directly contravening what they want us to do to "stop climate change," whatever that's supposed to mean. Never mind the politicians and the like; these are the supposed experts, experts who keep getting predictions wrong about the extent and severity of the change because so many their models and the data they base them off are faulty, and then cherry-pick data to build destructive policies like the net-zero nonsense upon.

If a billionaire is not worried at all about his companies polluting the city you live in, would that mean they are right? because that is what you are arguing.

Do try to build a stronger straw man.

How sure can you be that all the methods and conclusions you claim are valid?

Because that is what the scientific method is all about, the experts of the whole world agree on those conclusions even when the methods and data are open for anybody to analyze, pretending the whole scientific community of the world is in some kind of conspiracy to hide the "real" situation is simply outside of what is believable. Either the scientific community of the world is wrong or you are, and since you have presented no argument, no scientific criticism, no evidence to support your claim, that means you are the one mistaken.

Again, you clumsily dodge the point. If their methods, data and models were so accurate, how come the predictions are all over the place? Again, Climategate showed this, and many retired scientists in the field admit as such but couldn't go against the grain when they were working for fear of losing their jobs, or they figured it out afterwards. There's no such thing as a monolithic "scientific community" that agrees with your views, and you seem unwilling to even entertain the possibility that there may be errors in the overall catastrophe narrative. Just like you're unwilling to concede any ground over COVID.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

I wonder what the total emissions would be when added together, of all those terribly important people and their entourages, and the media, going to 28 climate conferences, the modest consequences of which could have been arranged over e-mail.

Fair point this. Of course it doesn’t necessarily follow that climate change isn’t a real issue.

Please don't ask questions like that. Just sit quietly and accept the wise pronouncements coming from these eminently eminent eminences. You know it makes sense, because they're better than you.

In my experience, they are intellectually superior to the predictable scamdemic/climate change a hoax/stolen election/EVs a scam/proxy war/forcing us to eat insects hive-mind types.

These sheeple couldn’t pour the urine out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel.

Still, always good to question those in power.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Irrelevant, really? We're not just talking about billionaires going to these shindigs

Yes irrelevant because they are not the origin of the scientific conclusions, so they are still completely valid and accurate unless you can scientifically disprove them. It does not matter who says the Earth revolves around the sun, even if the person you hate the most in the world and that routinely lies it would not make the statement less true or valid.

So the conclusions are still valid and disprove your personal beliefs, and will keep doing it as long as you can't refute them with actual scientific arguments. Address the arguments because when you run away from them you are recognizing they debunk your position.

Do try to build a stronger straw man.

You keep trying and failing to use fallacies to discuss, a straw man would be saying this is your argument, which obviously is not, it is an example that proves your logic, while applied in a similar situation, is obviously flawed and should be discarded.

Again, you clumsily dodge the point. If their methods, data and models were so accurate, how come the predictions are all over the place? 

The predictions have been confirmed until now, which is why the scientific community is still on consensus about it, claiming they are not is just another thing you are saying that you have not been able to support with evidence. The predicted changes are happening, the problems that derive from those changes are also beginning to be observed. This is not being "all over the place" but the opposite.

There's no such thing as a monolithic "scientific community" that agrees with your views,

When every single instruction of science, in every country, all over the world says you are wrong that is enough to confirm the consensus, I am the one agreeing with them, you on the other hand baselessly claim they must be wrong because you want to live without taking into account their conclusions. Yet, repeatedly fail to bring even one example of any institution that agrees with you, indirectly confirming the consensus is real and against what you claim.

There is no need to concede any ground to baseless claims not supported by any valid appeal to authority nor scientific evidence.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I had a brief look at those articles and the study they're based on, and they seem fairly reasonable at first glance, but I'll need time to analyse the study in more detail. Some of the models correlate pretty well with the observations, others not so much. The study they did acknowledge that many studies were essentially rubbish because they overestimated forcing scenarios, which I think they wisely omitted from their studies, but many of those dodgy exaggerated ones seem to be what a lot of policy is based on. You know, the runaway sea level rises (not happening), escalation in the number and intensity of tropical storms (no significant variation off the historical average) Also, the projection video in the NASA article uses the old trick of scary colours to make the issue look worse than it most likely will be.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The study they did acknowledge that many studies were essentially rubbish because they overestimated forcing scenarios, which I think they wisely omitted from their studies, but many of those dodgy exaggerated ones seem to be what a lot of policy is based on.

So the studies that conform the consensus are precise, so you will ignore them and pretend others that you don't bring are the ones that conform the consensus? that is not a rational argument.

Sea levels are predicted to climb, tropical storms have already been confirmed to increase in intensity and damage. What is the benefit you see in the same number of hurricanes destroying more infrastructure and killing more people.

Also, the projection video in the NASA article uses the old trick of scary colours to make the issue look worse than it most likely will be.

Rational people are not scared of colors, instead take into account the information provided, what actual scientific evidence do you have to prove NASA is "most likely" wrong about their projections? the whole point of doing things now is to not let things be as bad as they would be if everybody was in denial and called the scientific consensus wrong as you do. This means things would not be as bad only as long as your position is validly ignored.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

virusrexToday  04:55 pm JST

The study they did acknowledge that many studies were essentially rubbish because they overestimated forcing scenarios, which I think they wisely omitted from their studies, but many of those dodgy exaggerated ones seem to be what a lot of policy is based on.

So the studies that conform the consensus are precise, so you will ignore them and pretend others that you don't bring are the ones that conform the consensus? that is not a rational argument.

No, some models conform to the hypothesis that the global average temperature is climbing, but vary to the extent at which it's happening, and the more sensible ones say it is very moderate. But there are plenty of others that exaggerate the warming and have been shown as completely wrong. Are you saying that Climategate was a hoax? This was climate scientists themselves admitting they can't find statistically significant warming from CO2 etc, but revealing this would put the skids into the narrative and, presumably, their own funding. This shows your imaginary consensus doesn't exist in the real world among honest people.

Sea levels are predicted to climb, tropical storms have already been confirmed to increase in intensity and damage. What is the benefit you see in the same number of hurricanes destroying more infrastructure and killing more people.

Huh? When did I ever claim there's a benefit in the same number of hurricanes destroying more infrastructure and killing more people. That's one of the worst of many straw men you've invented. Desperation, by the sound of it

"Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4

Rational people are not scared of colors, instead take into account the information provided, what actual scientific evidence do you have to prove NASA is "most likely" wrong about their projections? the whole point of doing things now is to not let things be as bad as they would be if everybody was in denial and called the scientific consensus wrong as you do. This means things would not be as bad only as long as your position is validly ignored.

Rational people aren't scared of colours, but I don't think you have a very solid grasp of psychology, and you're assuming that all climate scientists are rational people. How sure can you be of that? There are plenty of people in any walk of life who will believe something if their paycheque depends on it, or manipulate others into believing it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No, some models conform to the hypothesis that the global average temperature is climbing, but vary to the extent at which it's happening

Which still prove the consensus is right, and your position unsustainable, if the consensus is that climate change is happening because of human activity and will bring serious negative consequences a small difference in the amount or speed of these changes do absolutely nothing to refute this consensus. The whole point of science is that a consensus is reached precisely by taking into account the best evidence, not just anything independently of quality. So pretending it needs to include lower quality evidence is simply a mistake.

This was climate scientists themselves admitting they can't find statistically significant warming from CO2

That is false, the role of C2 has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. "Revealing" falsehoods make no sense.

Huh? When did I ever claim there's a benefit in the same number of hurricanes destroying more infrastructure and killing more people. 

When you tried to use this as an argument that refute the fact that climate change is having a negative effect. Without this assumption you would be accepting the predictions were right and hurricanes have become more destructive and dangerous.

Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming

See, this has no importance because what the models predict is higher risks from the cyclones, which is accurate according to what has been observed.

Rational people aren't scared of colours, but I don't think you have a very solid grasp of psychology,

That is not an argument, just an excuse for disproving your mischaracterization of the data based solely on the colors chosen, as if that in any way would refute the values that prove the point of the scientists.

How sure can you be of that?

They make their reports data, methodologies and conclusions open so anybody can check if there is a rational problem with them, that you have not been able to refute the conclusions that support the global consensus means you have not been able to argue against their rational process. And by irrationally opposing this valid consensus you are the one exhibiting a much less rational attitude.

There are plenty of people in any walk of life who will believe something if their paycheque depends on it, or manipulate others into believing it.

But your point depends on the whole scientific community of the world doing that, which is frankly impossible to believe, the much more likely, rational and easy to believe option is that the whole scientific community of the world is not wrong, but the nameless people on the internet that can't support their claims with actual evidence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites