Yes I have found one more reason to dislike Trump... Why would anyone in their right mind exit a global accord like this one? I keep thinking that he is trying as hard as he can to give the Democrats full control of the House and Senate in 2019 & 2020... Maybe he truly is a closet Liberal looking to be the next Obama starting 2019... :-)
CNN Trump Announcement
CNN Money Elon Musk to Quit as Counselor
Science Trump Dumps Accords
WP Fact Checking Trump
Politifact Fact Checking Trump
CNN Business Support Accords
CNN CEOs Very Unhappy with Trump's Choice
This SNL skit seems appropriate today.
Trump Talks with Supporters
CNN Trump Announcement
CNN Money Elon Musk to Quit as Counselor
Science Trump Dumps Accords
WP Fact Checking Trump
Politifact Fact Checking Trump
CNN Business Support Accords
CNN CEOs Very Unhappy with Trump's Choice
This SNL skit seems appropriate today.
Trump Talks with Supporters
111 comments:
For devotees of the logical arts, Trump's speech yesterday raised a number of issues. His complaint as I understand it, is that the obligations of the United States under the deal, are both draconian and non binding. Since he also tells us, he want to renegotiate, the question he raises is whether a binding deal, the only logical alternative to a non binding deal, can be less draconian? Art of the deal, indeed!
When Mr. Trump wasn't discussing how draconian the whole thing was, what an invasion of sovereignty it all turns out to be, he then talked about how the deal wasn't binding on our partners to the deal. So how does he get around the notion that a dealing which is too binding on us isn't binding enough or invasive enough on the sovereignty of our partners in the deal?
Trump poses some of the most fundamental questions in dealmaking. Is it possible, in theory or in practice, to break a promise that hasn't been made? Can a nonbinding commitment be violated? What do the rules of logic say? Can there be a consequent if there is no precedent?
--Hiram
Yet another chapter of "Area Trump Voter Horrified By Terrible Thing About Donald Trump That Was Well-Known Before The Election".
Horrified may be a stretch... Mildly annoyed may be more accurate...
As the NPR reporter tried to ask the people who were saying that we should stay...
"If as you say that the businesses, many States, and general public are marching down the clean energy path to save money and the planet. What important reasons are there for the USA to stay in the accord? What will this exit actually change?
Food for thought from Eric
MP Trump Keeps Worst Campaign Promise
What important reasons are there for the USA to stay in the accord?
It keeps us at the table when these issues are discussed. It maintains our leadership role in framing the issues. It makes sure we don't cede a leadership role to China. It's hard to imagine, really, why we would want to exclude ourselves from a global discussion.
In terms of change, the deeper issue is that Trump is unable to sustain any kind of initiative at all. The executive branch of our government is simply melting away, and Trump's action on the Paris accord is one symptom of that much larger problem. What history teaches is that under the checks and balances form of government, when one branch seeks to operate effectively, the balance is restored by other branches taking over it's functions. We are seeing that happen now.
--Hiram
What You Can Do
About Climate Change
BW Global Climate Change Graphics
Snopes Obama's EPA Head's Comments
The difficulty is with the renegotiation. Trump complains that non binding rules are too draconian. And a loss of sovereignty. He also complains that the rules applicable to others are insufficiently binding, and I guess, don't interfere enough with their sovereignty. So in terms of renegotiation, where does that leave us? Does it make sense for master negotiator Trump to ask things from our partners that he is on record as saying are bad for the United States? In doing that, what can he argue? That nonbinding guidelines he views as too strict should be made more binding?
And let's not forget. Mr. Trump seems to want to making all these decisions and negotiations without an opinion at all, or at least not one held recently, on whether climate change exists at all? Mike Huckabee says that it's politicians statements and the associated hot air that's the concern. Let's just say, I am doubtful.
--Hiram
I wish Trump had ignored the economic arguments and focused on the very simple and straightforward "cost benefit." That is, the costs are going to be very large, even if all we do is send a few dozen billion dollars to the UN. And the benefit? How about a 1/10,000 of a degree per year in reduced warming? (Actual fact, look it up) Anyone care to do that math? Trump did the right thing, but he could have done it other ways that let him partly off the hook for the squeals of outrage.
Since it takes, apparently, 3.5 years to fully withdraw, one hopes that by then the whole great global warming swindle will be exposed.
According to Nikki Haley Trump believes in Man Made Climate Change. Maybe there is hope for him yet.
"Haley said: “President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of that equation. So that is the fact. That is where we are. That’s where it stands."
Personally I like those BW Slides. They show the history and trends in terms most people can understand.
Too bad those slides are pure hokum. The climate models should offer exactly the same result, considering "all factors." The fact is that the satellite temperature record does NOT support the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperatures, going back to about 1880, or back about 400,000 years, if you care to go that far. Since the climate models predict much higher temperatures than those observed, You must conclude that the individual contributions of each factor must also be in error.
If Trump still believes in "manmade climate change," then he is deceived like so many others.
Says the man with no better slides...
I've already shown you the one slide that matters, the one that shows that "97% of climate models agree, the observations are too low."
And we are still dealing in crystal balls, tea leaves and chicken bones trying to predict a "global temperature" 100 years from now (assuming there is such a thing and we can measure it, and that it matters), and doing it out to two decimal places when our best instruments measure only into the first decimal place.
And we keep ignoring the IPCC and EPA, who agree that if EVERYBODY followed the Paris agreement, in 100 years we wouldn't be able to find the difference (about 0.2 degrees). Somebody, please explain to me WHY we should get excited about "doing something" when "doing nothing" costs SO much less and accomplishes essentially the same result?
Politifact Please remember that when the goal is to keep the temperature rise to <2 degrees C... A 0.2 degree difference is pretty huge.
Trump: "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount."
Trump’s statement about the amount of temperature reduction expected under the treaty is broadly accurate but needs some additional context.
According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.
The Paris deal was expected to reduce global temperatures by building on the earlier 2009 Copenhagen Accord, imposing deeper carbon emission cuts on signatories and bringing new countries like China into an international climate pact.
Yet as the Paris Agreement was under negotiation, Reilly co-authored an MIT report that criticized the deal for not making steep enough cuts in emissions to reach the Paris agreement’s ambitious goal of capping this century’s temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius.
"Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun," Reilly said in October 2015, when the MIT study was published. "We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it’s not nearly enough."
However, Reilly said that tackling climate problems depends on taking a series of incremental steps to reduce carbon emissions, and noted that pulling out of the Paris agreement would require even bigger reductions in the future.
So apparently the question is when do we want to slow the polluting of our atmosphere and at what rate... Should people of today be free to live cheaper and pass the costs on to our grand children?
Of course, me being a people should pay their own expenses kind of guy is against our staggering national debt and the pollution load we are putting into the atmosphere...
Both of course are caused by cheap irresponsible people who are okay living large and passing the bills on to future generations. Let's raise taxes and clean up our power...
"97% of climate models agree, the observations are too low."
Then you'll be happy to know that they've discovered the reason for this, and it's of course not what you think it is. You can do your own research.
Moose
another successful "bait and switch" justification for "stopping climate change"! I must point out that CO2 is NOT a pollutant! Right now, you have 5000 times the concentration of CO2 in your lungs as there is in the atmosphere. If it were a pollutant in the conventional sense, you would be dead.
And I laugh at the treaty proposing to hold temperature rise to 2 degrees C. If the current trends continue, temperature rise will be, assuming we do NOTHING, will be about 1.5 degrees C. And most scientists will admit that 2 degrees would probably be helpful, not a problem.
Moose, I've DONE the research, and no where can I find any explanation for why the climate models are so far off of the actual data, unless they are simply WRONG. And I know the many, many reasons why they must be so.
Kyoto, Copenhagen, Rio, Paris, they are all full of more hot air than the globe they are trying to keep cool. The Paris targets are voluntary and set by each nation, and nobody has any intention of keeping those targets if it hurts their economy. It started with Kyoto, which the US refused to ratify, yet as near as I can tell, the US actually came closest to the supposed target.
I'll say it again-- if you come along with an energy source that is as reliable, easily distributed and costs less than what we have now, we'll all buy it, no mandates or subsidies required. And if it happens to produce less CO2, well, we won't care one way or the other. Or shouldn't.
Jerry,
The BW Slides show observed against causal factors. In fact that is all they show.
The definition of a weed is very simple... "A plant out of place."
Extra man made CO2 is little different... "Extra gas out of place."
Neither is a problem until it is a problem. Milk weed, Thistles and Black Night Shade are beautiful plants until they are growing in one's soy bean field.
CO2 and many other chemicals and gases are wonderful and useful when they remain in the correct location and in the correct densities.
That heat and carbon would still be in the ground if not for man. Not floating around our atmosphere...
Maybe we can all learn from the Boy Scouts
Jerry,
I am wondering what you are like when you go camping?
Is your motto "Leave No Trace" or "Use It All to Save Some Money"?
Would your beliefs lead to our Country and the World looking like Haiti compared to the Boy Scout's Dominican Republic...
Would strip mines and clear cut cover our country?
Would the factories and power plants still be polluting our air?
I mean you sure seem concerned about investing some money into cleaner and more renewable forms of energy.
There you go again, presuming that someone who understands that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, also believes that every real pollutant must be allowed to be put "into the wrong place." It's completely backwards, illogical, and borderline insulting. It's even silly. How does one "use it all to save money" when one goes camping? One Ahwahnee Hotel is better than 300 technicolor tents smoking up the Valley.
You just cannot seem to grasp the magnitude of the problem. Cut US CO2 emissions by 50%, and you alter the atmosphere by about 3 parts per million. Global Warming "Theory" is worried about another 400 parts per million.
I am concerned about my tax dollars (and utility payments) going towards energy sources that are inefficient, unreliable and incredibly costly, simply because they might reduce the CO2 that some wacko computer models say is going to cause a little global warming. If they were CHEAPER and also reduced CO2, the world wouldn't be effected much-- hundredths of a degree cooler and a few less plants-- but my living standard would improve, as would those of those third world nations starving for lack of such development. Yes, I AM concerned about investments, but not how you think. I am all in favor of converting garbage to MHD electricity with natural gas as a byproduct; I almost bought stock in the company. I think we should have long ago started building nuclear breeder reactors, recycling nuclear waste, and be well on our way to thorium reactor commercialization. Maybe even lithium fusion. But windmills? Those went out with high-button shoes. Literally.
What I grasp is that digging and/or pumping fuels out of the ground and burning them is a non-natural human made event that has consequences. And I comprehend that the number of humans and their hunger for power is growing at astronomical rates. This combination is a clear violation of "Leave No Trace". And I know that we can do much better with little financial impact while growing new industries and creating new jobs.
I think you had best get adjusted to seeing wind turbines on the horizon...
I only see the number growing as bigger and better battery technologies come on line.
Fine. Here you go.
Climate Model Accuracy
Moose
"And I know that we can do much better with little financial impact while growing new industries and creating new jobs."
You know nothing of the kind. You BELIEVE, as an article of faith, that such is possible, even though Google engineers have determined, after exhaustive study, that it isn't possible. Just like you BELIEVE, as an article of faith, that burning fossil fuels will create a climate catastrophe, even as those who claim such prove, by their own math, that it isn't possible.
We probably will see more windmills, simply because the hoax has been so successful, and the government both mandates and subsidizes them. We can also expect fewer birds, and less reliable energy supplies. Look up "availability factor."
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but humans are a PART of nature. Everything we do has consequences, but we are smart enough-- most of the time-- to make those consequences beneficial to ourselves. Burning fossil fuels is beneficial to plant life, and helps us to live better. These folks wanting to deny science would have us give up all the benefits for no real gain.
"Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but humans are a PART of nature. Everything we do has consequences, but we are smart enough-- most of the time-- to make those consequences beneficial to ourselves. Burning fossil fuels is beneficial to plant life, and helps us to live better. These folks wanting to deny science would have us give up all the benefits for no real gain."
That may be the most delusional thing I've ever read here, which is saying a lot.
I'll concede that burning fossil fuels may help plant life. They will likely be around long after the planet is no longer hospitable to human life.
The science denier is you. Don't kid yourself.
Moose
Moose,
Good link regarding the model accuracy.
Since they have only been working seriously on this for 30 years and there are SO MANY FACTORS... I am sure they will never be perfect, but I am sure they keep getting better.
And since the fossil fuel usage by man is relatively new and grew so fast, I am sure things will keep changing and becoming clearer. Here is a good link other than the site name.
Moose, thank you! It is a valiant effort. However, a lot can be learned reading "between the lines" of the report.
First of all, saying that the models are "accurate" since 1880 is pretty easy, considering we have only had these models since about 1990. What you are seeing is the influence of "fudge factors" (called "tuning" by the "scientists") to make the models "accurately" predict the accurately known past. And notice the models don't even get THAT right.
Furthermore, if you look at the models AFTER 1990, you will see the the measured and predicted diverge considerably and consistently. And notice that the actual readings are from "surface" temperatures, from widely spaced stations, and then "adjusted." I would bet that if I compared the temperatures at my house versus that at the MSP airport, I would find a discrepancy, and the "average" would tell me nothing about the rest of the planet. I am also betting that the Channel 9 forecast for tomorrow will not be within .02 degrees of the Channel 5 forecast.
"Accuracy" is the correct term, it is how close the actual is to the predicted. The other term is "precision," which is how repeatable that prediction is, compared to the previous prediction. The notion that we can predict global temperatures (whatever that means) 100 years from now to +/- .01 degrees is just silly. We can't even measure that close, and right now the models can't even predict within +/- about 5. For tomorrow.
Then there is this: "The new study addresses this problem by instead blending the modeled air temperatures over land with the modeled sea surface temperatures to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison." What it means is that we took what we predicted, averaged it with what we found, and made that the new prediction. Mirabile Dictu! Our predictions got better! Gee, why didn't they just adjust their predictions all the way to the actual, as they should have done on the data before 1990? It would completely invalidate the predictive ability of the model, that's why, but of course their predictive value is essentially zero anyway. You fix models by making them accurately reflect the mathematically modeled behavior of each of the (roughly 200) variables which, in this case, are very poorly understood. Also, notice the wide range of variance in the predictions as they are? About 3:1 difference? Do we really want to spend $40 Trillion only to discover the prediction of 1 degree of warming 100 years from now-- the lower end-- was the right one?
John, are you a Malthusian? I remember back in 1980 when the world was running out of oil and natural gas and we only had a few years before we would run out. Remember that?
It's still going to happen, though probably not in our lifetime or maybe even our kids'. And then where are all these predictions going to go? Remember, these models ASSUME a doubling of atmospheric CO2. If we get lithium fusion up and running, or Thorium breeders (each of which will take decades), the whole basis for these models disappears in a flash, even if they HAD some validity (which they basically do not).
Moose, I don't know what to do for you other than to repeat what Obama's EPA director told Congress, that the "clean power plan" (cutting CO2 by 30%) would have "no noticeable effect on climate." This has been confirmed time and again by the IPCC climate models themselves. The correct phrase is therefore "all pain and no gain." Feel free to verify it for yourself, unless you prefer the hoax to the truth.
One can read between the lines, and one can make up stuff based on pre-conceived and ill-formed notions.
Your entrenched denial is pitiable, except that we would all suffer because of it.
You are claiming that the science supports your position, just as I claim that the science supports mine.
Remember, the gasoline industry had science on their side when they said that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem. And the cigarette industry had science on their side, too.
Thankfully, we know better.
Moose
I hear a lot of platitudes about what the science does or does not say. How about directly quoting the science? I can prove what I say, that human CO2 is insignificant, and I can use your sources to do so. Now tell me, how are you going to use those same sources to say otherwise? There is a difference between a qualitative argument and a quantitative one. I can believe that CO2 emissions effect the climate, while simultaneously knowing that such effect is insignificant in the scheme of things. Can you?
Who was it who said, "It isn't what people don't know that causes trouble, it's what people know for certain that just isn't so." What do you know?
Jerry,
Apparently you are more of a Malthusian than I am...
"Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control."
LOL. And on that score you would be correct. There is a lot of harm to be done by casual sex, beyond the possibility of unwanted pregnancy or venereal disease. Abstinence until "ready" should always be preferable. Now we find virginity and purity mocked in the popular culture. This does not bode well.
Jerry,
Over the years of us debating this you have never shown any understandable unbiased proof that the BW slides are incorrect.
Please remember what the MIT expert had to say...
"Yet as the Paris Agreement was under negotiation, Reilly co-authored an MIT report that criticized the deal for not making steep enough cuts in emissions to reach the Paris agreement’s ambitious goal of capping this century’s temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius.
"Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun," Reilly said in October 2015, when the MIT study was published. "We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it’s not nearly enough."
However, Reilly said that tackling climate problems depends on taking a series of incremental steps to reduce carbon emissions, and noted that pulling out of the Paris agreement would require even bigger reductions in the future."
Similarly, we hear dedicated and reputable scientists with absolute proof of the global warming swindle being called "science deniers" by the swindlers, and having that be the popular belief. Again, the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history.
You seem to have a bias against looking at actual numbers, rather than some interpretation of those numbers. Look what is being said, here, that if everybody meets their phony-baloney emissions targets, something we all know is never going to happen, we shave 0.2 degrees from the "global temperature" 100 years from now. That's exactly what I have been telling you! Huge reductions in manmade CO2 are not going to reduce global temperatures, and THAT comes straight from those flawed climate models! Any reading of the real data suggests that the most likely temperature in 2100 will be about 1.5 degrees higher, if we do NOTHING!
And I also point out that the 2-degree "target" was pulled out of the air, and that no climate scientist to date has established the amount of CO2 (let alone manmade CO2), that corresponds to any given global temperature. It's all hocus-pocus.
And one more thing: you ask for "understandable proof." Sorry, but it is not my responsibility to make you understand; all I can do is offer the proof, or you can find it yourself if you just look. Like you just did.
Please give me the names of these reputable scientists...
"we hear dedicated and reputable scientists with absolute proof of the global warming swindle"
I have looked at every name you have ever given me and I think only one was even a climate scientist... The others were economists, lobbyists, etc.
Maybe this is a good starting point.
Wiki List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming They have a strange list of scientific specialties.
Here is a WIKI List of Climate Scientists
Wiki Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
I can no longer engage in this fruitless discussion, just as I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a pig to sing.
Moose
Good idea... Jerry and I have been at this for years and made no progress... :-)
You DO know that the "97% of scientists" number, the "scientific consensus," consists of EXACTLY 43 "scientists"? That the climate models cannot agree, within a factor of 3:1 or more, what the temperature rise will be? That temperature rise has "paused" despite the continuing increase in CO2? That the 600,000-year archeological record of CO2 and temperature demonstrates clearly that global warming causes CO2, not the reverse, and that both temperature and CO2 have been historically higher than today, and the planet survived? That there is a 95% statistical certainty that the models are wrong? That storms, sea levels, and temperature changes are in line with historical rates of change? That human CO2 accounts for about 4 parts per million of the 400 parts per million the models assume as problematic?
And most importantly, that the IPCC and EPA agree, using THEIR models, that reducing manmade CO2 doesn't make a dime's worth of difference, let alone $ TRILLIONS.
If we wanted to make progress, we could start by your acknowledging these facts, rather than repeating dogma.
And if being a "climate scientist" means you are immune to the requirements for proof of your hypotheses, then it is more akin to wizardry and fortune-telling than it is to science. When one can baldly assert that the measurements are wrong because they don't match the models, even though some models don't match the other models, there is something wildly UNscientific afoot.
Regarding the 97%, this gentleman fact checks it well. The real number is not 97%, but it is still official consensus and a lot more than 43 scientists. By the way his career was in the petroleum business...
As for that supposed pause, see this article in Scientific American.
As for proof and refined models... They are coming as the BW slides show. Of course if we waited until you were convinced things would be pretty hot around here... :-)
The "97% number was always bogus and has been repeatedly and effectively debunked. Anyone using it is a charlatan at best. Of course, much depends on the question asked. If you ask "do you believe human burning of fossil fuels effects the climate" you get one answer, usually positive. If you ask "do you believe that humans will create a climate catastrophe 100 years from now" you get quite a different answer.
And when you say "proof and refined models... are coming" you give away the whole game. We have ZERO credible evidence for the CAGW hypothesis. We should wait until we DO have such convincing evidence-- proof-- before taking any possibly counterproductive action.
Meanwhile, you are fond of charts and evidence, here are a few:
80 charts
I am pretty sure many people are like myself and do not believe in CAGW, and yet we acknowledge that we can and must do better to reduce our negative impact on the world we live on and the harm we are going to incur on people in certain areas of the Earth. (ie. near equator, near oceans, etc) Especially as the population and energy desires increase at exponential rates, and since we are very capable of doing so. (ie technology & funding)
The more we can be like the Boy Scouts the more certain we can be that humans are not screwing up the earth that has been so good for us.
As for your "evidence"... How would anyone trust temperature data before ~1900 is beyond me. And who cares how the temperature varied in one area of the earth over time? We know that temperature in specific areas change over time...
As for delaying action until we are certain. I keep think of similar examples...
If a driver thinks he sees a stalled car through the fog in front of him. Should he start slowing down immediately or wait until he is certain?
A manufacturer starts suspecting that their product has a flaw. Should they just keep pumping them out the door until they are certain?
A person starts to suspect that they have a disease. Should they delay going to the Doctor until they are certain?
And I am still waiting for proof that the IPCC and EPA are WRONG, and drastic curbs to CO2 WILL reduce global warming, rather than what they are saying now, which is that it would be insignificant.
I keep thinking of how small the breathable atmosphere is on this planet and am always amazed that so many people are not concerned about putting all this into it daily... Yes this is apparently DAILY.
"Flows (daily production) during 2006
Coal: 18,476,127 short tonnes (16,761,260 metric tonnes),[20] 52,000,000 barrels (8,300,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day
Oil: 84,000,000 barrels per day (13,400,000 m3/d)[21]
Natural gas: 104,435 billion cubic feet (2,963 billion cubic metres),[22] 19,000,000 barrels (3,000,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day"
Now I realize that the Earth feels HUGE when standing out in a field. But you really have to remember that there is only a ~5 mile high atmosphere over us that we can breathe... After that we would begin to die...
"since we are very capable of doing so. (ie technology & funding)"
Ah, that's what they WANT you to believe. Google engineers studied it for years and concluded otherwise. Other nations have tried and given up, others have determined, after consideration, that it just isn't going to work. Had they had some reasonable expectation of a real, impending climate catastrophe, or convincing evidence that CO2 reductions would help avoid it, that would be one thing, but there is NEITHER.
Nobody has any inkling that the temperatures in 2100 are going to be anything outside the range of Earth's natural variations. And the "climate scientists" and their flawed models say that curbing CO2 won't matter, either!
Now, if we knock off the government subsidies and mandates on the energy industry, some smart guy will find a way to produce more abundant, reliable and cheaper energy than fossil fuels, and we will all happily buy it. If it by the way emits less CO2, well, a lot of plants won't grow as well, but that's the price of progress.
"If a driver thinks he sees a stalled car through the fog in front of him. Should he start slowing down immediately or wait until he is certain?" Gee, why is he driving faster than his visual range permits? That would be as stupid as going too slow and causing the very accident he tried to avoid.
"A manufacturer starts suspecting that their product has a flaw. Should they just keep pumping them out the door until they are certain?" What kind of manufacturer has no quality control or customer warranty feedback? The same kind that continues to insist that their climate models prove one thing, when they are both clearly flawed yet prove the opposite?
"A person starts to suspect that they have a disease. Should they delay going to the Doctor until they are certain? " Well, let's see, thanks to Obamacare an office visit will cost me $150 out of pocket. I checked WebMD online and there is a 95% chance I do NOT have the disease, and if I do eventually come down with it, a simple dose of antibiotics will clear it up. Yes, wait and see is the right course of action.
And I want to know why we are engaging in hypotheticals when we clearly have a case for inaction on a grand scale, lacking as we do ANY justification for action. Why are we hell-bent on rushing to a hideously expensive non-solution for a non-problem?
Jerry,
Please feel free to keep waiting.
And I don't see this as a drastic cut...
Sorry, but you are not a climate scientist, so your concern over gigatonnes or whatever of CO2 don't count. Real scientists say human CO2 is about 4% of annual emissions. It's the other 96% that's a really big number. So what? Who is going to tell Mother Nature to "knock it off"?
And to answer your question...
The majority of Climate Scientists and Americans disagree with you.
"lacking as we do ANY justification"
We can see that things aren't quite right and are happy to start resolving the potential problem instead of waiting until the full scope and details of the problem are known.
It's not the size of the cut, it's whether government orders it or not, and whether it actually MATTERS or not. The EPA put out the rule, and the EPA says it doesn't matter. Does that make sense to anybody?
Mother Nature's system is balanced at that 96%...
The human 4% drives Mother Nature to adjust...
That may be very bad for many humans.
One more time. Snopes EPA Statement
"Claim: Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan would have little or no effect on carbon dioxide emissions.
RATING: MIXTURE
WHAT'S TRUE:
The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan was conceived as the starting point in a global effort to slow climate change whose direct impact on worldwide CO2 emissions was expected to be quite modest; then-EPA administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged that the plan would "in and of itself ... not make all the difference we need to address climate action."
WHAT'S FALSE:
McCarthy did not say the plan would have no effect on man-made CO2 emissions or global warming."
I know you worry about the HUGE amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels. My sources say it amounts to 24,216.1 million tonnes per year. The total weight of the atmosphere is actually 5.5 quadrillion tons. So, a little simple math says: the amount added to the atmosphere every year is 4x 10^-6 (4 parts per million).
But Mother Nature is NOT "balanced." She adjusts, and is adjusting, to the higher CO2 levels. We also know that CO2 increases as a natural result of warming from natural sources. And none of this really matters unless you can prove that CO2-- manmade or otherwise-- is the principal driver of global temperatures, and you cannot. You can easily DISPROVE it, from the available data and from mathematics or from computer models. The interesting question becomes why so many people are so eager to believe something that is very clearly untrue, or becoming agitated about things that don't matter, as if we COULD do something about them? [insert Serenity Prayer]
Serenity Prayer - Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
I love that prayer... Maybe the Climate Change Deniers should adopt it and lighten up. :-) Clean energy is coming whether they want it to or not.
And always, please provide a link to that source.
OK, Snopes. In context, what she said was in response to a question as to whether or not she considered a reduction of 1/100 of a degree (as calculated by EPA from IPCC models)"significant." The answer is, to paraphrase, "No." This notion that the US and our "moral leadership" on the issue is just so much bunkum and we all ought to know better. Why else the hue and cry over our withdrawal from the Paris agreement? And even if the world did follow the Paris agreement fully for 100 years (yeah, right), the IPCC says total reduction in year 2100 is 0.2 degrees. According to their average calculation, that's about 1/10 of what is needed to get to 2 degrees total. In other words, why bother?
If "clean energy" is coming it will be great. But CO2 is not a pollutant so natural gas, coal, and oil all constitute "clean energy" in the usual sense of the term. Again, if somebody gets that lithium fusion up and running, we'll all happily buy it. Or we could have thorium breeders as soon as they could be built, but the same people saying we can't burn coal are also strongly opposed to anything with "nuclear" in the name.
And let's not use that term "denier," since it would seem to be applicable to both sides, at best. "Science denier" applies to only one side of the debate, and you know who I mean.
Sources? Google it. I didn't know the answers would be right, I just took the numbers I found and, lo and behold.
Personally I think the "Deniers" are those on the other side of scientific consensus... In this case it means those who think that human activities are not having a negative impact on our Earth.
So just keep repeating the Serenity Prayer to yourself...
This to will pass.
You see, that's the problem, there is no such thing as "scientific consensus"-- science isn't done by opinion poll. The nature of science is that one scientist with the actual data can disprove the best theory. (And in this case we have NO proof at all of the theory itself.) You will get a high percentage of scientists, informed or otherwise, who will agree with the proposition that human activity is affecting the climate. What you will never find is even a slim majority of scientists who have even a rudimentary knowledge of the issue who will accept the idea that this effect is "catastrophic" or is caused entirely by CO2.
Those you are calling "deniers" almost do not exist, because the "consensus" is that human activity DOES affect climate (negative/positive a matter of interpretation). But trying to bootstrap that into the idea that human CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe requires a complete "denial" of actual science. It's pseudoscience at best, if not outright fraud.
Again... I don't see many people saying "human CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe". I see people saying that:
- more people will die due to increasing storm severity, and possibly due to more ticks, mosquitoes and poisonous critters moving North.
- more people will be displaced due to rising water levels and shifting desert areas.
- this is unnecessary if we just get better at living on earth while disrupting it less. (ie Boy Scout method) We have the money and technology to do so.
- Now do we have the will.
I believe we have established that what you "see people saying" bears all the hallmarks of verisimilitude. And only that.
Storm activity has not increased as predicted and in fact is a bit lower than historical averages. The change in disease, etc., has not been observed, as would be expected since temperatures have slowed their rise. And none of these problems caused by "global warming" have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not manmade CO2 is the CAUSE of that warming. That's the old "bait and switch" game the Warmists pull, every time.
Sea level rise is slightly decreasing over the historical average. CAGW theory says Minnesota will be drier and California wetter than normal. Until last year they had it backwards. What we do know is that areas of desert are now being covered by green plants, because higher CO2 levels increase plant growth AND increase water efficiency.
And there you go again with "we have the money and technology to do so." NO, we don't, and if we did we should be spending the money on technology that makes energy more reliable, more efficient, cheaper, and more widely available. Hint: if it costs more than what we're doing now, it's the wrong technology. Get your power any way you want, if it saves money, it's the right thing.
You ask if we have the will? No, we don't, because it doesn't make simple economic OR scientific sense. What we have instead are government mandates and subsidies that would be entirely unnecessary if a "better" energy technology were readily available. So when somebody (usually a government body) tells me they are putting in solar cells and the apparent payback is over 100 years while the life of the cells is about 25, the "will" isn't the problem, it's our fundamental intelligence.
Want to save the planet? Quit throwing your trash in the street. Recycle aluminum and paper and glass. It doesn't cost you anything and it does eliminate "resources out of place." CO2 in the air is not "out of place."
'CO2 in the air is not "out of place."'
This is patently false. Carbon that has been sequestered OUT of the atmosphere for millions upon millions of years is, by definition, out of place IN the atmosphere.
Moose
No, it's not. When forest fires start up, is that CO2 out of place? When you breathe, "new" CO2 gets created. Do you wish to stop, to save the planet? Point being that CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere and is essential to life on Earth. No CO2, no plants, no plants, no oxygen. QED.
Now what you and the Warmists want to worry about (endlessly and unnecessarily) is the /concentration/ of CO2 in the atmosphere. But in recorded and archeological history, that has been both higher and lower than the current day, and it has been an entirely natural process-- SUVs and Chinese coal power being a recent phenomenon. And the temperature on Earth has been both higher and lower than today, and there seems to be almost no obvious correlation between the two.
LOL
That's all that can be said anymore.
Moose
Back at ya', Bub. The notion that human beings will, with "95% certainty" create a "climate catastrophe" 100 years from now, is about as reliable as that 100% certain prediction from 1970 that the world would end before 2000. Or that we were entering a new ice age. Or that we would all be in flying cars.
The ONLY "scientific evidence" we have for CAGW "theory" is the prediction from what everybody acknowledges are badly flawed computer climate models. But I'll tell you what. I will accept your theory as proven when you can answer =ONE=, and only one question: What WAS the "global" temperature on June 11th, 2117, and does it match the prediction you made 120 years earlier, within 2/10 of a degree? I will even allow you to adjust that prediction to whatever the CO2 level is at the time, compared with the assumption you made, since you cannot possibly be expected to predict THAT. Deal?
Jerry,
You are obsessed with the CAGW thing... Let me repeat...
"Again... I don't see many people saying "human CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe". I see people saying that:
- more people will die due to increasing storm severity, and possibly due to more ticks, mosquitoes and poisonous critters moving North.
- more people will be displaced due to rising water levels and shifting desert areas.
- this is unnecessary if we just get better at living on earth while disrupting it less. (ie Boy Scout method) We have the money and technology to do so.
- Now do we have the will."
Some reading for you.
NOAA Storms
Sea Level Rise
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? :-)
I am obsessed because you and a lot of other people are getting snookered. Just look at your evidence. You have one report that says storms are increasing, and another that sea levels are rising abruptly. Even if they are correct (facts disputed by the "consensus" of scientists, BTW), both reports make the immediate and totally illogical leap to the notion that these events are caused by manmade CO2. Why? Would our policies change if, as is most likely, these observations are entirely natural or within the range of natural variation?
I am obsessed because people cannot see the critical difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." And don't say you don't hear people "saying that." The ENTIRE public policy debate is predicated on the idea that this is catastrophic, manmade, and global. If it isn't catastrophic we need do nothing, and if it isn't manmade, there's nothing we can do.
Now if you want to suggest we waste and pollute less, great, all for it, I'm already doing it because it saves me money. But CO2 is not a pollutant, and the only way to "waste" it is to foolishly try to sequester it in the ground. Let the plants do that, it's a win-win.
And you keep saying we have the money and technology to do so, that is, to stop global warming. May I request a credible source for such an outrageous claim?
PBS News Hour
Jerry, All but 2 countries signed the Paris Accord. And Nicaragua did not because they thought it was to little reduction. Not sure why you think we can not afford to live cleaner.
I'm not sure why you think Paris matters in any way, shape or form. The "pledges" are voluntary, and even if they were all met (which is likely impossible), and continued forever past 2030, the predicted (IPCC) decrease in global temperatures is likely to be unmeasurably small. And many countries signed on because they expect big bucks from the "climate fund" the treaty establishes.
Remember the US was one of very few to sign on to Kyoto? The US Senate rejected it 99-0. And yet the US came as close or closer to the target as did any other nation. Why? Because we pursued economic growth and "saving money" through energy efficiency.
"Live cleaner" tells me you have been drinking the warm Kool-aid. CO2 is natural and necessary, not a pollutant and not harmful to human health (unless it becomes 20,000 times more plentiful).
More science for you to deny.
And this one has mixed news.
Please remember that farmers apparently have plenty of CO2 for their crops, it is Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Other that they need to add each year.
I wonder if the species that go extinct because of Climate Change would consider it catastrophic?
Perhaps humans will be one of those species. Perhaps not.
Moose
Along those lines.
Smithsonian Can They Adapt
I wonder if species will go extinct whether the climate changes or not? Can you name for me ONE species that has gone extinct "because of" MANMADE "climate change"? And a question for you, since you seem unwilling to take up my challenge for convincing proof of the theory: Why did supporters suddenly begin calling the impending "catastrophe" "climate change" instead of "global warming," when the ONLY meager evidence they have supports warming?
John, your confirmation bias is showing. If plants grow faster using less water and less nitrogen, isn't that a Good Thing (TM)? Farmers add fertilizer to their soils because CO2 is free. Though in some places, CO2 is injected into greenhouses to radically increase crop yields.
Jerry,
You said that excess CO2 doesn't matter... I provided sources that show that it does.
Now I am happy to read your sources if you provide them. However claims with nothing to back them up just make people question your judgment and views.
As for providing you with "convincing proof", that is simply impossible because your cup is full. A long time ago you decided that it was a hoax and have stuck with that view no matter how the science has developed and improved.
I think they went to climate change because it is a more accurate and complete description. A lot more than just the temperature is changing.
Same problem with providing you with an extinction event caused by man made climate change. If you can not be convinced of the latter, we sure can not convince you of the prior. :-)
Here are some interesting impacts.
USN Cicadas Hatching Early
NPR Ticks
'Why did supporters suddenly begin calling the impending "catastrophe" "climate change" instead of "global warming,"...'
The IPCC was formed in 1988. So...what are you talking about?
Moose
I agree that for a long time all we heard about was Global Warming... Then the popular media changed over to Climate Change when the supposed pause occurred.
It did seem interesting.
"Then the popular media changed..."
What does that have to do with the Scientists?
Again...the International Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was formed in 1988.
Moose
Moose, that's a good point. But in the major media it was always "global warming" until about 2000, because that is the ONLY scientific basis (the greenhouse effect) for making the computer models work. I think they changed the name because of the well-known "Gore Effect," that is, whenever Al Gore went somewhere to talk about global warming they had a terrible blizzard. And they can call it "climate change" all they want, but every other piece of the climate they say is changing is CAUSED BY the fundamental "global warming" they started with. They are simply trying to confuse the issue, because the fundamental "theory" (aka hypothesis) that human CO2 drives temperatures to catastrophic levels is flat-out wrong.
"I think they changed the name because of the well-known "Gore Effect," that is, whenever Al Gore went somewhere to talk about global warming they had a terrible blizzard."
It's very hard to fix stupid. Most people who misunderstand global warming think that a blizzard on a very small portion of the planet's surface disproves it. The easiest thing for the media to do was to change the terminology. Inevitably, the stupid cry, "See, we told you it was a conspiracy! They changed the name to cover it up!"
Moose
Jerry,
You keep ignoring the data and espousing opinions with no back up sources. That is a sure sign of someone with a failed premise. And it is what you normally accuse Liberals of....
Per my latest link...
"The new study is unlikely to quieten sceptics but the authors say their new work shows that the rate of warming in the last two decades is no different from the rate of warming since 1970 or from 1950."
"It's very hard to fix stupid."
Moose, you are correct again. It is pretty stupid to go around trying to convince people that "snow is a thing of the past" when they can look out the window and see 12 inches of the stuff. sure, All weather is "local," but when you go someplace to give a speech, that is local, too. in this notion that "weather is not climate" makes no sense to me. What is climate if not simply the aggregate of weather? if it snows where Al Gore is speaking, then for him to be correct about climate doesn't there need to be some place that is abnormally hot and dry at the same time?
"You keep ignoring the data and espousing opinions with no back up sources."
How odd. Usually it is those who propose a radical new hypothesis or public policy shift to demonstrate a solid and rational, scientifically proven basis for their new ideas. Why is it suddenly necessary for us skeptics to prove a negative?
It still simple. You and the IPCC are projecting what the global temperature will be 100 years from now, and the politicians are saying we have to make radical changes to our lifestyle to prevent that projection from becoming real. All you have to do is to measure the global temperature 100 years from now and compare it with what you projected. If it matches, you're right. That is basic, fundamental science and logic. Do I need sources for that?
Simply amazing...
"we have to make radical changes to our lifestyle"
I have yet to see these proposals... Stop burning coal and continue to make our vehicles more fuel efficient... Where is the radical in that?
Do you remember what the quickest car is now? The terrible sacrifices we need to make in the name of keeping our planet more pristine. Oh my... :-)
"What is climate if not simply the aggregate of weather?"
Is it going to snow in Minneapolis in July this year?
Moose
This is an interesting presentation. Speaking of actually using sources and data.
I especially liked the "ice out date" slide.
"As for providing you with "convincing proof", that is simply impossible because your cup is full. "
No, providing me with convincing proof is impossible only because it is impossible to do so, period. I will open the same challenge I did to Moose, to you. I will consider it irrefutable proof of your theory if you can tell me what the "global" temperature WAS on June 11, 2117, and that it matched the predictions made in 2000 within +/- 0.2 degrees. I will even allow you to adjust your predictions based on the actual level of CO2, rather than the one assumed when you made your predictions. Now if you cannot do that, there is no proof, only a pseudoscientific, wild-eyed guess about the future.
And John, your idea of "convincing proof" is still totally predicated on a faith belief that, regardless of what is observed, human activity is the cause. It's that "bait and switch" con game again.
"Stop burning coal and continue to make our vehicles more fuel efficient... Where is the radical in that?" 80% of US energy comes from fossil fuels. You don't think an 80% cut should be considered radical?
I have no desire to help you change the contents in your cup. That is up to you.
Please provide a source where a political party is recommending totally eliminating the use of fossil fuels... Even the Clean Power Plan came no where near that.
"The final version of the plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32 percent within twenty-five years relative to 2005 levels. [10] The plan is focused on reducing emissions from coal-burning power plants, as well as increasing the use of renewable energy, and energy conservation.[11] White House officials also hoped that the plan would help persuade other countries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide to officially pledge to reduce their emissions at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference.[12]"
And it looks like we are still going to have fossil fuel burning cars.
So again, why do you keep exaggerating and not providing robust sources?
Usually people only do that when they are wrong and unwilling to admit it.
"I have yet to see these proposals... Stop burning coal and continue to make our vehicles more fuel efficient... Where is the radical in that?" -- John
Do you consider yourself a "robust source"? I did not say a "political party" was proposing such radical things. You just did. Some politicians have hinted at such things, and "substantial" cuts, such as 32% of the CPP, are WILDLY radical in the context of the supposed benefit achieved. If I asked you to invest $1 million now, and promised to pay you a dividend of /up to/ $5000 100 years from now, would you jump at the chance? That's what the CPP does.
Again, let's go back to basics. I can concede that the climate is changing-- that is a given. I can concede that it seems to be getting warmer (though very slowly). I can concede that fossil fuels may contribute (slightly) to that. And yet, when the very people telling me that fossil fuels must be curbed to save the planet also tell me that, if we do [curb fossil fuels], it will not matter much, I find it disturbing that people will ask me for positive proof that those things I have already conceded are NOT happening. Why, and what difference would it make? Even if the "science" is right, which in my mind it cannot possibly be, the policy prescription arising from it is entirely wrong.
In other words, if you want to have a scientific discussion about the many factors of climate, and build those new understandings into the climate models (we have a young man from our church planning on a life's work in that field), feel free. Do NOT turn it into a massive political crusade based on such [currently, I will concede] unreliable prognostications.
Jerry,
I think that is the most rational statement you have ever made regarding climate change. Thank you.
I am sure we will get back to it again in time.
"...which in my mind..."
Glad we've settled that. Now maybe we can move on from this hamster's wheel of a discussion.
Moose
This subject will continue to come up until all the hamsters believing the Warmists when they say CO2 is the problem, and not believing those same people when they prove it isn't, have come back to logical and scientific solid ground.
John, what is NOT rational about what I have said? Is it that this SHOULD become a massive political crusade, rather than following basic science until something becomes known?
OK, perhaps there is a better way to phrase that, especially if a real "climate scientist" says it?
a climate scientist
A climate scientist who works for CATO... That sounds about as unbiased as a climate scientist who works for the Sierra club...
Apparently the Liberals are familiar with him.
TP History of Errors
Source Watch
Exxon Secrets
I see, just because somebody speaks the absolute truth, it must be because he is somehow guilty by association with the "bad crowd"? Did you see the part where he is one of the original authors of the IPCC report?
You are proving my point. So long as somebody goes along with the hoax, they are "reputable scientists." When the same person turns around (and there are many scientists and former believers who are now strong skeptics) you dismiss them as hacks. It's just not logical. And when someone like the EPA head says that we must curb CO2 to prevent a serious problem, and then in the next breath, practically, says that curbing CO2 won't matter, doesn't your BS meter wrap round the pin?
He did not make up that 0.2 degrees, either. "MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change projects that, even if every country followed through with its promises, the Paris agreement would reduce warming by only 0.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100." Other scientists have confirmed it. So WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE that says Paris is critical to human survival?
Usually I am suspicious of the "whole truth" spoken by someone who is paid by the fossil fuel industry or the tree huggers... Aren't you?
And as I keep saying, I think few people believe that "Paris is critical to human survival"... I just think they believe Paris will save millions of lives, a lot of money and prevent a lot of people being forced to re-locate.
You keep ignoring what the MIT folks had to say... From above...
Please remember that when the goal is to keep the temperature rise to <2 degrees C... A 0.2 degree difference is pretty huge.
Trump: "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount."
Trump’s statement about the amount of temperature reduction expected under the treaty is broadly accurate but needs some additional context.
According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.
The Paris deal was expected to reduce global temperatures by building on the earlier 2009 Copenhagen Accord, imposing deeper carbon emission cuts on signatories and bringing new countries like China into an international climate pact.
Yet as the Paris Agreement was under negotiation, Reilly co-authored an MIT report that criticized the deal for not making steep enough cuts in emissions to reach the Paris agreement’s ambitious goal of capping this century’s temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius.
"Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun," Reilly said in October 2015, when the MIT study was published. "We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it’s not nearly enough."
However, Reilly said that tackling climate problems depends on taking a series of incremental steps to reduce carbon emissions, and noted that pulling out of the Paris agreement would require even bigger reductions in the future.
Usually I am suspicious when a bunch of politicians try to tell me what a bunch of government paid scientists are saying, and not letting me see the actual data. Aren't you?
And I cannot help – though I wish I could – what people think about this issue. None of these fears are in the least warranted because, quite obviously, it is beyond our ability to prevent it, And certainly not by foolish policies like the Paris agreement.
As for your "context," I was going to chide you for poor reading comprehension but I will not. After the fourth or fifth reading, I realized that this was simply more obfuscation and pettifoggery. Think about it, please. The Paris Accord set a "target" of no more than 2° of warming. That means that the expected warming was considerably greater than that, so 2/10 of a degree is NOT significant, especially considering the huge costs it would take to achieve the reductions in CO2 thought to be part of the agreement. But of course all of those pledges are entirely voluntary, subject to huge loopholes, and unlikely as a practical matter to be achieved or even achievable.
"Building on earlier agreements" is also rather telling, since there were no binding reductions in those agreements, and no actual reductions that came out of them. To my knowledge, the United States came closest to meeting their promises under the Kyoto agreement, even though we rejected that treaty! It will be the same here, that we will come closer by exempting ourselves from the agreement than most of the signatories will. And again, it isn't going to matter.
Remember my saying that you should read through things and pick out the salient facts,, and ignore all the stuff around it? Well, the salient fact here is that the very best that might come from the Paris agreement is a 0.2° temperature reduction – 100 years from now-- that is probably inside the margin of error of our measurements. Put another way, the cost/benefit is astronomical or "all pain, no gain." Why anyone with two brain cells to rub together cares about this kabuki theater production is beyond me.
Well the good news is that I am sure we will have more opportunities to visit the topic over and over...
Of course. It always takes some time to realize you have been the victim of a hoax. Or maybe a scam, considering the difference between the two.
I agree... I am wondering how long it will take for you to come to grips with how the fossil fuel funded deniers are manipulating you... Good luck working your way through it. My prayers are with you.:-)
Odd. I thought I was pretty clear that the sources I quoted were from the EPA, the IPCC, and credentialed climate scientists? It couldn't be more clear. So which are you going to believe, those supposed scientists who simply say, without evidence, that we have a CO2 problem, or those same scientists when they prove we don't, with actual numbers?
And keep in mind, it's all just crystal-ball gazing. NOBODY, but nobody, knows what the temperature will be 100 years from now, nor WHY. Basing a highly-expensive public policy on such wild-*ed guesswork is illogical in the extreme. I know you want to deny the expense, but you cannot prove it; the facts are too much against you.
Put another way, we are WAY beyond "overrunning the headlights" of the science.
As you say... Only time will tell...
Is that clear road beyond the headlights or a train that we are about to run in to... I am okay with letting of the gas until we know.
Thank you. I wish that the rest of the world were as reasonable and rational. After all, all I am asking is that we do science according to the scientific method. That is, someone creates a hypothesis (stated simply, that manmade CO2 is driving temperatures higher), a prediction is made from that hypothesis (models say global temps will be 2-8 degrees higher in 2100), and then we TEST and observe whether the predictions match the observations. In other words, the actual science here will not be complete until at least the year 2100! In the meantime, there are interim predictions and observations, and so far that looks like a complete bust for the hypothesis, but let's give it another 80 years. So long as we can get the "scientists" and politicians to quit messing with the "test," I'm happy. Trump done good.
Post a Comment