From Laurie:
Off topic link about climate change from K. Drum. I am sure my view that more R and D is needed has been influenced by K. Drum posts.
The World Is Giving Up On Climate Change
Bringing this topic up again is a waste of time as no one here is persuadable, but the other topics also go nowhere and this one is more important.
and From me...
NPR Green House gases continue to rise...
Off topic link about climate change from K. Drum. I am sure my view that more R and D is needed has been influenced by K. Drum posts.
The World Is Giving Up On Climate Change
Bringing this topic up again is a waste of time as no one here is persuadable, but the other topics also go nowhere and this one is more important.
and From me...
NPR Green House gases continue to rise...
8 comments:
The laughing continues. We have ZERO evidence that temperatures in the year 2100 will constitute a catastrophe, and won't have for another 80 years. And we currently have only a slim hypothesis that fossil fuels will have anything to do with it if it DOES occur. Unassailable logic and scientific fact, look it up. If the models are right, manmade CO2 is not the problem. If the models are wrong, manmade CO2 is not the problem. "cleaner" energy, sure, bring it on. But only if it is actually cheaper and more reliable than what we have. But the Google engineers could not conceive of it being feasible for years, if we HAD such a technology which we don't, and it wouldn't matter to the climate if we did. I am reminded, somehow, of the Cardiff Giant.
Jerry,
As Laurie said... The Deniers and the CAGWers are rock solid in their beliefs and unable consider the gray area in between.
Really no point discussing the topic. :-(
On the upside for you... You can claim you are correct until you die... It will be your great grand children who will pay the price if you are wrong... Kind of like your support of Trump's huge deficit spending. :-) "Screw the kids... I got mine..." :-)
Also fortunate we live in the North and away from the oceans...
Fine. Cling to your belief and please, please, don't actually THINK logically about the proposition, or consult actual data. Put ultimate faith in those models or better yet, what "experts" SAY that the models show. My great-grandkids are going to be just fine regardless of how many fossil fuels we burn, but they will have a lower standard of living if we keep tilting towards windmills.
So it's OK if people near the oceans suffer from NATURAL disasters (since they aren't manmade and you cannot prove they are)? And I want to know what a "denier" is? Is it somebody that looks at the actual data and finds the hysteria greatly exaggerated? Or is it somebody that continues to deny that the actual data belies what they say it says?
I sometimes wonder how it feels to have an ego as large as you... :-)
No matter how many true climate scientists tell you that you are incorrect, you hold fast to your opinion without doubt... Not even Judith Curry denies the science...
I think that you are nearly the perfect denier... Congratulations.
This is a very practical opinion
My OPINION? Have you ever looked at a shred of evidence I've supplied? And are you going to deny that the "global temperature" in 2100 will not be known until then? Have you ever asked what if YOU (and your vested interests in "climate science") are wrong? What if we spend trillions on bird-shredders, and the temperature goes up anyway? (which it will)
First of all, I read or at least scan all the links that are provided on G2A.
Second, you often link to political scientists and economists, it is hard to take your opinion seriously.
Third, you like to comment on the NASA and NOAA data, while totally disregarding their analysis because you know better than they what it means.
Fourth, you say that the plants will grow better. Somehow implying that this will balance out man's ever increasing creation and release of green house gases, while we watch the measured concentration go up every year. Obviously the plants are not keeping up.
So apparently you choose to deny simple science that goes back to 1824. If the concentrations increase, so will the trapped heat load.
And if we are wrong, please reference the comic I attached to this post. Or check out this piece on the wonders of low cost fossil fool energy.
Post a Comment