Pay me now or pay me later. 😎
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(325)
-
▼
November
(26)
- NAFTA is Now USMCA
- The Bell Tolls for Trump?
- Trump is Bad for Business
- 4th National Climate Assessment
- MN vs WI and IA
- Trump on Deficits
- Happy Thanksgiving !!!
- Earned Income Tax Credit
- Lock Her Up ! Lock Her Up !
- Press Pass Games
- 2 Republican Wings?
- Acosta Gets Press Badge Back
- Trump's Racism is Showing
- Rasmussen Presents
- Trump The Manipulator
- No Progressive Majority in America
- Women and the GOP
- Controls the Burbs, Control the Country
- Did DEMs Win MidTerms
- Trump News Conf and More
- Thank Hevens: Grid Lock Again
- The Proof is in the Vote
- Election Thoughts?
- Emotional Tribal Members
- More Climate Change Info
- We Need a Third Party?
-
▼
November
(26)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
131 comments:
Pay later, thank you. I find "hot tips" about the stock market or about race horses far more reliable and trustworthy.
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities."
What can I say? Start with a lie...
It is kind of funny that this report was published with a Man Made Climate Change Denier in the White House.
VOX Report
FOX Report
The Hill Report
Politico Report
"Start with a lie..."
Prove it.
Moose
You need to notice something. NOWHERE in any of these reports do they make anything except the most specious attributions of the CAUSE of these observed changes? That is, nowhere do they distinguish between MANMADE climate change and NATURAL climate change, and simply assert, absent any evidence, that the entire "catastrophe" is of the former, not the latter. That cannot be true, has been repeatedly and thoroughly proven untrue, and yet it persists. Why?
Imagine how much wealth mitigation efforts would create. New business, new technologies, etc.
The horror!
Moose
"That is, nowhere do they distinguish between MANMADE climate change and NATURAL climate change, and simply assert, absent any evidence, that the entire "catastrophe" is of the former, not the latter."
Weird. I read this:
Global climate is also influenced by natural factors that determine how much of the sun’s energy enters and leaves Earth’s atmosphere and by natural climate cycles that affect temperatures and weather patterns in the short term, especially regionally (see Ch. 2: Climate, Box 2.1). However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence. Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1, Figure 2.1).
Moose
"Imagine how much wealth mitigation efforts would create. New business, new technologies, etc." Especially since none of these things NEED to be done at all. It is the technological equivalent of the "broken glass" theory of economics. That is not to say that if somebody develops an alternative energy source that is cheaper, more reliable and easily deployed that they should not make billions of dollars doing it, and we will all happily buy it, even if it DOES incidentially produce less CO2. But mandating something that costs more, is less reliable and does nothing for the environment, just so we can say we're doing something for the environment, makes little if no sense.
"Global climate is also influenced by natural factors..."
Thank you, Moose, that is a very good counter-argument. But the statements that follow include assertions without sufficient evidence. The fact that the climate models do not accurately "hindcast" (i.e. correctly "predict" what happened in the past) is evidence that the models are flawed, not that the data is wrong.
And of course saying that natural factors contribute is suggesting that manmade effects predominate, which their own flawed models say is not true. Look at the graphs of "with and without Kyoto" or "with and without Paris." The difference is small.
"Especially since none of these things NEED to be done at all."
I disagree with your premise. We also did not need to go to the moon, but much wealth was created because we did.
Moose
"Thank you, Moose, that is a very good counter-argument. But the statements that follow include assertions without sufficient evidence."
There is plenty of evidence. But, as you have swallowed the Trump-ade (it's yellow), you are impervious to facts.
Bye, Felicia.
Moose
Going to the moon was an objective we set for ourselves, as something we could do to advance our technology and our human progress. Going back to using windmills and sunshine sets us back 400 years. And doing it to "save the planet" is simply not worth it, especially since nothing we do (about CO2, read the IPCC and EPA reports) is going to save the planet.
Okay, prove the basis for this one: "However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be explained by natural factors alone." The question being, explained by WHOM? Just because the climate models are flawed and do not predict what actually happened in the past, and do not accurately predict what is happening in the present, should give us pause as to what they predict in the future.
By the way, this report is regarding the impact. Volume 1 addresses the Science
And yet there are no impacts which we can measure which prove that the CAUSE (and thus the solution) involves fossil fuel burning. If the cause is completely or largely natural there is nothing we can do about it, and shouldn't try.
I notice something very odd about this report. Whenever "evidence" is offered, it consists simply of assertions derived from the conclusions-- it's circular reasoning or demagoguery, take your pick, but not science. They simply refuse to show you the math which, in my extensive study, puts the lie to all of it.
By the way, if you want some fun, look up the list of "scientific evidence" of the over 700 things "caused by climate change."
I think you need to dig deeper and open your mind. :-)
Though I see neither happening anytime soon.
I don't understand your point. I have already gone back to the basic data (supposedly) used to create the report, read the interpretation of that data for myself based on charts of that data, and reached my conclusions based on what those charts obviously show. Should I change my opinion because a bunch of politically-motivated non-scientific bureaucrats say that the data shows?
Go back to my original assertion, that "Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities" is a lie. Do u see anywhere in this report where the last part of that is proven by actual data rather than more bald-faced assertions of it? How about the first part? Is there any reliable data to prove that?
I know you want to believe and will resist all attempts to confuse you with facts.
As you wish... Though the group you are in keeps getting smaller with each passing "historic disaster".
This was interesting Discussing Climate Change on the Internet
I was wrong on climate change. Why can’t other conservatives admit it, too?
Laurie,
Good link !!!
I am not an alarmist yet, but the ability of many people to deny these curves and the changes all around them is amazing.
They remind me of ostriches with there head buried in the sand as their butts get burned...
And don't forget the babies… :-)
This seems related to Laurie's link / question.
VOX Conservatives and Conspiracies
"Though the group you are in keeps getting smaller with each passing 'historic disaster.'"
Exactly. I will agree with you here. Global Climate Change has been and continues to be "the most successful pseudo-scientific hoax in history." Blaming every NATURAL disaster on Climate Change has risen to an art form, DESPITE the fact that the data shows no such correlation! I can assert that the weather tomorrow will be different than today and be correct almost 100% of the time. But if I blame the lagging sales of electric cars for the difference, am I an "expert" are just some schmuck hawking electric cars?
We've covered all this ground before. Look at the satellite temperature record. It has undergone the least "adjustment" and then compare with the spotty land data, where official recording sites are now next to asphalt parking lots, etc.
satellite data
Sorry... But when 100 year storms start occurring every year... Something has changed significantly...
And in this it about 7 billion of us. :-)
Sorry, but when 100 year storms occur /someplace/ every year, that is entirely natural and statistically probable. You should know that. Planes are expected to fly forever and never crash, yet someplace in the world, every year, a plane crashes. Was that caused by climate change? proof of global warming
officially, hurricanes NOT correlated with climate change
I'll pass on reading more of WUWT and Dr Spencer…
His qualifications looked better than your usual sources until I got down to this...
"Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming",[32][33] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. "
So if you skip the reason for his belief, is there any reason to believe that he is wrong? I mean, a few hundred million years of data should be convincing, should it not?
Oh I believe the system is self correcting... By plan or luck...
Unfortunately Mother Nature may purge herself of us insensitive uncaring humans as part of her miraculous recovery.
Remember one of my favorite quotes
"Try to leave this world a little better than you found it and, when your turn comes to die, you can die happy in feeling that at any rate you have not wasted your time but have done your best." Robert Baden Powell
What is your favorite quote?
"Dig, pump and burn... And hope the world can adjust..."
My favorite quote is "the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that there is a limit to intelligence." That, and the quote from Desiderata, "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should."
Let me ask this: Why do you hate poor people?
I would ask the same thing since a very large number of the poor on this planet tend to live in areas that are hot already and/or near the ocean... And they will have the hardest time adapting to climate changes.
This still has to be one of the most horrifying recent events.
And what a joy those killer heat waves will be for the poor.
I will point out that humans already live in average annual temperatures ranging from near zero to over 80 degrees. Do you really believe that another 3 or 4 degrees makes the whole planet uninhabitable? And which do you believe is more harmful to poor people, those few largely natural and unavoidable degrees, or the lack of economic development, energy for refrigeration, medicine, transportation, cooking, and on and on?
Notice that China and India are both expressing their commitments to Paris in terms of "CO2 per GDP"? Why would they do that if CO2 was so important?
As for your "horrifying event," I point out that it was not caused by global warming, but maybe by "climate change" (since the nomenclature was changed precisely because warming was not happening). It cannot be, because the "catastrophe" predicted by the climate models won't happen for 100 years. And cold kills more people than heat. Especially if air conditioning (or heating) from cheap energy is available.
Humankind can adapt to higher temperatures much better from a wealthy economy than from poverty. Develop now, adapt later, rather than chase false preventive measures.
Well if you are willing to accept more "climate change" asylum seekers in MN...
Imagine it... Mass migrations away from the oceans and equators.
That will make the "caravan" look like a dribble.
I imagine that if such are the results of a tiny change in climate, where people suddenly start preferring colder, higher-tax climates to warmer ones, then we'll have to adapt, because there is NOTHING we can do to prevent it.
And more importantly, it won't be your problem because you will be dead... So keep living large and leave this mess to the kids and grand kids. Kind of like the national debt.:-)
Or Maybe Not
Maybe Not
You still assert that natural disasters are somehow manmade, and that simply defies logic. The costs of these things are going up because more people build more "stuff" in the path of these disasters, but their frequency and magnitude are within the historical normal range.
Please, pin your fears on something real and don't make us think we can do something to prevent these things.
Please feel free to keep your head in the sand.
I prefer to stay aware and manage issues as they arise. :-)
Glass is made from sand. You may and will do as you wish, and if you are smart you will "manage" whatever Nature throws at you, especially since you have the resources to do so. So why do you hate poor people in the third world and want to deprive them of the resources to adapt to their natural environment?
Do not allow a larger human catastrophe by trying to prevent something which we cannot, while denying us the resources to adapt as needed.
So apparently I want to rob them of refrigeration and air conditioning, and you want to cook and/or wash them away...
It is unfortunate to be born in a third world country.
We are so lucky to have been born here. :-)
I want to improve their lives, to give them the same economic opportunities as we have, to be better able to survive whatever Nature throws at them. Have you noticed, when there is a mudslide in Bangladesh, it is "deadly" and "devastating," but a mudslide in California is pretty much covered by insurance or a federal disaster declaration.
And mind your language, please, sounds like you want to blame me personally for what Nature does. If I had that power, which I obviously do not, I certainly would not do /that/ with it.
Here is an objective view. If it doesn't make you happier (by disproving your fears), it is your problem.
what it really says
For a thorough and scientific debunking of NCA4, see Assessing the assessment
There is nothing objective or very meaningful about a piece written by an Economist from the Heritage Foundation... who is writing about Climate Change and its potential impacts in the National Review...
But I did read the whole thing and it seems like you could have written it. No wonder it resonates with you. (ie confirmation bias) :-)
And I can not even find a Resume for this Andy May guy...
Silly question: Do you have resumes for all of the so-called "scientists" that you DO choose to believe? Whatever happened to "the truth is where you find it"? Can you even begin to refute the completely objective science on display in these well-footnoted treatises? And please, no more baseless assertions.
What major point in either article do you specifically reject, and on what scientific or rational basis?
Presumably, published climate scientists are published climate scientists, not economists.
No need for a resume.
Moose
Also, I usually can find their resume easily because they are accredited experts.
Not just some guy out to make money of a conspiracy blog.
An Interesting Link
"Presumably, published climate scientists are published climate scientists, not economists."– Moose
so is it not inappropriate for "climate scientists" to be prescribing Radical Economic changes? And why do you continue to ignore the many "published climate scientists" who openly disagree with the "consensus" and have the data to back it up?
"Also, I usually can find their resume easily because they are accredited experts." – John
So, who is the "accrediting agency"? What are the qualification requirements? Does Al Gore qualify? And since a full study of the climate requires expertise in a whole panoply of disciplines, how can anybody really be called an expert?
And so what happens when one expert, In one related field, disagrees with an expert from another field, over something in which neither is or can be an expert?
what about when the pronouncements of an "accredited climate scientist" disagree with their own data? which do you believe?
And is a "climate expert" whose funding comes from a government any more trustworthy than one whose funding comes from a fossil fuel industry? How about an expert who takes no funding from either source? Are they not the most trustworthy of all? or are you going to dismiss them because they generally fall into the category of open skeptics, with the data to back it up?
Jerry,
Please point me to these "many "published climate scientists" who openly disagree with the "consensus" and have the data to back it up". Usually you just point us to some political scientist, economist, random blogger, etc who cherry pick data.
Well usually the experts I trust more have a university degree in some form of climate science field.
Even the reputable petro chemical companies accept the reality of man made climate change:
Exxon Mobile
BP Global
Shell
Not sure why you still fight the idea that our massive yearly emissions do matter.
OK, feel free to look up every one of the experts cited here:
NIPCC And then refute every point of evidence.
As for the companies, I think it more fair to say that they recognize the reality of climate politics impacting their business, not wanting to make themselves a target, and wanting to participate in any government-mandated change to their business rather than be destroyed. GE has long been "on board" with the idea.
Fred Singer looks somewhat qualified, however he has a mixed success record...
"According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[53] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[54] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". "
These folks do not think much of NIPCC.
And she apparently did review a previous report from these folks.
Okay I skimmed the paper and read the conclusion.
It reminds me a bit of the Ford Pinto decision fuel tank process... Remember when they used economics to cost justify people dying... It proved to not be a good idea then, and I don't think it is a good idea now.
Wow. You read a Wikipedia entry, written by a highly biased Warmist, and still manage to ignore that this fellow is a PhD in Climate Science, widely published, and has the data to back up his skepticism.
Comparing it to the Pinto case, while odd, is not without validity. Ford did a cost/benefit analysis-- valuing human life at what the courts do-- and came to a logical but unethical conclusion. That is exactly the opposite of what the Global Warming Hysterical Conspiracy is about, which is to (unethically) vastly distort the cost benefit analysis, telling you that $20Billion/year, going into THEIR pockets, is giving you a HUGE benefit of 0.01 degrees less warming 100 years from now. And somehow the people who expose this pseudoscientific hoax, using the official data, are the bad guys?
I think the Wiki page did a good job of explaining the history of Dr Singer. The man apparently has a long history of resisting new science and distrusting other scientists.
If that "report" was your idea of good data, we have to disagree. As the school teacher wrote the issues with it.
As for the economics vs lives calculation, I am much more concerned with the NIPCC's desire to understate the negative impacts of doing nothing.
Please note that their "Impacts of Fossil Fuels on Human Health" slide only showed positives... Really?
Almost every honest scientist admits that up to 2 degrees of warming is probably beneficial, based on history alone. Now, based on conjecture based on flawed climate models, no. But that is the difference-- real data on the skeptic side, and demagoguery at its worst on the other. Believe what you want, but I believe the science.
How they can ignore all the downsides definitely makes their conclusions suspect.
I mean this is pretty well proven whether you believe in man made climate change or not.
By the way, these folks actually discuss the pros and cons of climate change.
That is a sign of a reputable source vs a group who is just pushing a conspiracy agenda.
There you go again, looking at propaganda instead of data. The first two are talking about pollution having adverse effects. That is a given, especially when pollution is defined as "resources out of place." But CO2 is NOT a pollutant! It is an essential factor in life on Earth, and belongs in the atmosphere! It is not directly harmful to human life until it exceeds about 50,000 parts per million, or 125 times what it is now. India and China burn coal with no controls on particulates and such. The US has reduced that by about 95% or more, AFAIK, and is using the fly ash captured-- resources NOT out of place.
The third one is symptomatic of our entire discussion. Every "Con" is a =/prediction/=, not a fact based on observed evidence, or it is a fact for which the CAUSE cannot possibly be proven and, generally speaking, is contradicted by the data or by the science or both. Many of the "pro" positions are consistent with observations or with established science. Most people will simply look at one side of this chart and dismiss those unsupported statements out of hand. But that is what the argument is about. The hoax/scam/propaganda refuses to let facts come to light and punishes those who would do so.
Your source's slide was labelled...
"Impacts of Fossil Fuels on Human Health"
Not the Impacts of CO2 on Human Health...:-)
The burning of fossils harms humans in many ways beyond just climate change. And your source just put on the blinders and painted a rosie ?no down side" picture.
Where as the Skeptical Science folks did note that there would be benefits like longer growing seasons. And detriments like changing rain patterns. And that winter deaths will fall, but deaths from heat and insects will increase.
As I keep saying... Good sources acknowledge both sides... They do not just try to preach their gospel.
Fossil fuel pollution, of the non-CO2 kind, is highly regulated in the US, and not so in the rest of the world. You've been to China? So when the US says we want to limit CO2 from coal-burning plants, they are planning to defy the laws of chemistry and physics, as well as economics. It makes zero sense.
And all the other "benefits" and "detriments" are PREDICTIONS based on zero scientific data, and seriously shaky science. I can predict a Mars colony fully operational by 2020. That doesn't make me a rocket scientist.
One more thing: You claim to be looking at both sides but continually deny any validity to the experts, the data, the math and science of only one side, and accept baseless suppositions from the other.
Probably because the one side keeps cherry picking data and comments from the other side.
Also, they tend to show graphs starting in the 1970’s in an effort to mislead.
Also, they only discuss the “flaws” of the competing view instead of discussing the “accuracies” also.
In short, one side is a group of conspiracy theory folks...
In short, one group are the science deniers, and the others are labeled so.
Like is often said, "97% of climate models agree. The data is wrong."
You are the one insisting that there was a "break point" in the temperature trends about 1990, were you not? And didn't Al Gore start his graph 400,000 years ago? Didn't Michael Mann start his graph about 1000AD? Attempt to mislead? /Please./ I don't think that graph shows what you think it does.
See the curves
Here's the conclusion:
"If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There is no reasonable analysis that demonstrates that the potential harm from anthropogenic climate change in the future justifies any significant expense today."
And here's the fact-filled but biased source:
facts
Don't do what you usually do and dismiss the facts just because of the source. Show a little honest skepticism of "your side" of the argument.
Now this more interesting than your link.
Brown to Green Report
"more interesting"? Isn't this the report being properly criticized? Whether it is or not, I notice that the Brown to Green report is properly colored, at least, and little more. It quotes all sorts of statistics for how governments are forcing a particular solution to a "problem," without ever defining the problem, verifying that it actually exists, and that their solution is relevant! Lots of numbers, and all meaningless!
They really don't need to prove the problem exists...
I think they are mostly just tracking how countries are doing against their promises. (ie Paris Accord)
"They really don't need to prove the problem exists..." Really?
If somebody tells me the Martians are invading and we need a "space wall" that's going to cost $147 Trillion, do they need to prove the problem exists?
Not if they are just issuing a status report on the walls progress.
How about if they are demanding urgent action on its completion?
At what point are we allowed to call out lunacy for what it is?
You can call out the lunacy as long as you wish... This is America !!!
Many people screamed and protested the discovery that the Earth rotated around the Sun.
The good news is that science finally won out and the conspiracy folks died or were converted.
Ah, but the round earth people had REAL EVIDENCE. What evidence do the lunatics have, those who claim that climate must not be allowed to change, and that we puny humans can control it?
The Church questioned Copernicus...
You question Arrhenius...
Seems pretty similar to me...
I can imagine you yelling that Copernicus was part of a left wing conspiracy to undermine religious beliefs... "Everyone KNOWS the Earth is the center of the universe..."
I do not question Arrhenius. He was correct, but he never fully quantified his theory. The climate models go beyond Arrhenius theory in setting Earth's "climate sensitivity [to CO2]" for the very specific reason that CO2 was a convenient "fudge factor" for the "unexplained" error in their models, to let them explain the slight 20th century warming. [Notice that even with this, the models make as great an error "hindcasting" as they do forecasting.] The models continue to use this fudge factor, despite countless research papers showing that the climate sensitivity is actually about HALF of what the IPCC continues to use. GIGO
It took most of 150 years for Copernican Theory to be proven right. We are asked to accept without question some NEW "Theory ( of AGW)" that, like Copernicus, has been around only a couple of decades, and lacks any "scientific evidence" beyond religious cant. There will NOT be such evidence for at least another 100 years, if ever, yet the religious zealots insist it is true and heretics like Copernicus must be punished. "97% of computer models agree- the data is wrong."
Please remember that the Climate Change Scientists are the heretics in your world view...
And you are part of the religious zealot group trying to punish them for promoting "new science" and "new responses".
Remember that your mantra is that "they are wrong until they convince me they are correct..." Pretty much the same as that of the Catholic Church long ago.
Well, the Catholic Church was right to question Copernicus. He did not have the evidence, and his was the brand new theory. The burden of proof is on the new theory, not the existing one. Modern "Warmists" have turned that upside down, insisting that theirs is the proven theory and everything we have observed over the last 20 years, 100 years, millenia and epochs is wrong. Who you gonna believe, they say, me or 400,000 years of actual data?
I am certain that is exactly what the "Copernicus Deniers" said back then.
And I am certain that the Copernicus Believers" believed and lobbied for their position.
And as usual you are denying the big changes on this Earth that started during the Industrial Revolution...
Oh, and the "Climate Change Scientists" aren't wrong when they do real science. They are wrong when they lie about what the science says. Remember their own statements to the effect that they have to tell scary stories and express no uncertainty? Some call that lying, not science. Just as an example, the IPCC uses 4 possible scenarios, with 100-year predictions ranging from just beyond Paris-2.5 degrees-- to a nearly impossible 8.5 degrees (keep in mind those predictions are way off to the high side). And the latest NCA relies exclusively on RCP 8.5 for its predictions of catastrophe!
If they had said something like temp rise will likely be somewhere around 1.5 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees, would anybody care? NO, but it would be more honest.
Only time will tell who is correct.
The biggest changes were that the human condition improved markedly, and the Earth went along on its merry way as it has for a million years. I'll believe in manmade Climate Change after all those cobalt bombs are unleashed and create a nuclear winter. Or a major asteroid gets "steered" into us with the same result.
"Only time will tell who is correct."
So why are be spending billions of dollars right now, today, assuming that one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong? What if we spend trillions of dollars and have no effect on the climate? Because all indications are that will be the case.
It is only money...
Better to spend it and survive for sure than...
to not spend it and risk mass casualties...
Well that is if you value human life more than money...
OK, let us assume that your risk of dying of a heart attack in the next 2 years is roughly 3%. By funding a $1 trillion research program, you can reduce that to 2.8%. Or you can take a little better care of yourself, for free, when you realize that you've put on a few pounds, IF you put on a few pounds. Your choice?
Or, trust the experts, who say that "preventing" Global Warming will cost roughly $70 trillion, while adapting to higher temps, if and when, would cost about $7 Trillion-- one tenth as much. The "prevent at all costs" argument is foolish, since prevention requires knowledge of the exact timing, magnitude and cause of the problem. Even if (huge if) the models are correct about the cause, they vary in timing and magnitude by an order of magnitude. If future warming is already predicted to be less than 1.5 degrees, how much should we spend to keep it under 1.5 degrees? Should we be spending the same amount as we would spend (assuming we COULD) to keep it to 1.5 degrees, believing (without evidence) that otherwise we would suffer 8.5 degrees of warming?
Since none of us agree on the costs, likelihood, consequences, etc.
This is a pointless discussion.
I would say that at best the world's countries are doing the equivalent of 'taking a little better care" of this world... So we will likely see how bad it gets in the future.
On the upside you will not live to experience the consequences of our human choices. Even I will probably be around for another 35 years.
As with the tax / spend / borrowing selfishness, it will be our kids and grandkids who will bear the consequences of our choices.
If none of us agree on "costs, likelihood, consequences,etc." WHY on God's Green Earth is our government spending billions of dollars putting up bird-shredders and world governments are demanding we spend trillions more?
And it is worse than "we don't agree." It is there is absolutely no solid reason for spending the billions we already are spending, let alone much, much more. When can we stop the madness? Since projections from current measured trends show us meeting the Paris targets already, why can't this "hair on fire crowd" declare victory and stay home?
Jerry,
You and the Deniers see "no solid reason for spending the billions we already are spending"...
Most of us see good reason for doing so.
"Pressed further by The Washington Post in an interview last week, Trump said many smart people, himself included, dispute the existence and causes of climate change — a statement at odds with the vast scientific consensus on the subject.
“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said in the interview, adding, “As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it.”
But 58 percent of voters say climate change is being caused by human activity, compared with 30 percent who say it’s a natural phenomenon. Only 4 percent of voters say climate change is not happening, while 8 percent are undecided."
Jerry,
The good is that you are "special". You are either in the 30% or 4%... :-)
I repeat: "The most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history." I don't think you can survey average voters about scientific issues; after all, look who they elect as President. Surely that is not a reasoned consensus.
And once again, where is the evidence that the 58%, or the 30%, or even the 4% are correct? Is not the correct answer, judging solely by the available evidence, what the 8% say? Isn't that what you have just said, that "we don't agree on..."?
And by the way, who says things like "the vast scientific consensus on the subject"? Sounds like a highly biased interviewer, trying to argue that Trump is wrong. He's not. And science is not done by consensus. Theories must be proven by test and observation. CAGW has failed every test to date.
What I said was...
"Since none of us agree on the costs, likelihood, consequences, etc."
Apparently "58 percent of voters say climate change is being caused by human activity" and therefore we also have some power to change things.
It is the majority who will determine what we do.
Oh, sure. Idiocracy. But asked what their top policy priorities are, CC usually doesn't make the top 10 and often the top 20. Faced with reality, one word: Paris. It's all well and good to say we must "do something," but when the something becomes concrete, people start to wonder whether it is worth doing. Whereas if they knew the REAL choices, they would know it is not. The only "consensus" here (58% of the uninformed is not a consensus) is the fundamental "97% of climate models agree, the data is wrong."
Do you ever get tired of screaming into the storm?
Extremely. But I must concede that you, too, have been very consistent in siding with "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history" and are sticking by it. You have a great way of denying fact and promoting dogma.
I am not sure if they would appreciate "my potential moose in the road on a foggy night" as fully supporting the most extreme positions.
I just believe that it is better to be safe than sorry for the good of our children and grand children.
I mean the CAGW alarmists are as certain that our doom is sealed as you are that humans can behave as they wish without significant negative consequences occurring.
Now we are getting somewhere. The difference is that the "alarmists" have no evidence. Every time I suggest that there is no evidence, you tell me one of two things, either that some "expert" has said that there IS evidence of some great calamity about to befall, without providing such evidence, or that we must be "better safe than sorry" with no consideration of the COST of being "safe." What is "safe," by the way? 1.5 degrees? 2? 4? Has the world every been warmer than today, while humans survived?
As for the other, I can guarantee you will be safe rather than sorry (from auto accidents) if you just buy an auto insurance policy from me. It will cost you $1000/month, but it is void if you ever get into an automobile.
And to save time wrangling about the analogy, here, I'll spell it out. IF the climate models are correct (which we all know they are not), then the solution of wind and solar are, =by those same models=, NOT the solution-- all pain, no gain. But of course if you want to overlook facts and just BELIEVE (and very, very selectively) you will just need to ruin your children's futures by sending them down that rabbit hole.
find the rabbit
"which we all know they are not"
By "all", I assume you mean the 30% and 4%.
The 58% apparently believe if not perfect... They are directionally correct.
By "all" I mean anyone that has looked at the official temperature record and compared with predictions from the models. Or looked at the underlying assumptions of the models, or analyzed the results of the models for precision and accuracy (hint: they are neither). Of course, that might mean that only the 8% (and one assumes a fraction of those) are well-informed on the subject. But they are substantially correct.
Enjoy the screaming into the storm...
It is not going cease anytime soon.
But John-
It snowed in Charlotte, NC. So much for Global Warming, am I right?
Your efforts here have been substantial, but as someone on this blog once said, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
Moose
I keep trying to reason with John, but he keeps putting up the same old two totally unfounded arguments- "experts say" and "better safe than sorry." Neither are based in actual DATA.
Yes, it snowed in Charlotte. How IS that "warming," exactly? Was it supposed to snow MORE on this day?
And John, there is no storm, and there isn't going to be any storm, other than a rhetorical one. Back in 1970 (the height of the "Global Cooling" scare) there was a book called "The Late, Great Planet Earth" which promised total destruction by 2000. One of my favorite lines in that book was something like "so and so was wrong back in whenever, and so and so else was wrong back in whenever else, but I tell you I am right, today." Keep telling yourself how right you are, because according to those climate models, you won't be around much longer. Or you could imagine that reality doesn't always obey these "prophets." Other than arguing against closed minds, it's really a far more enjoyable way of thinking.
"Yes, it snowed in Charlotte. How IS that "warming," exactly?"
If you don't know the difference between weather and climate, you don't belong in this conversation at all.
How would it be warming if a significant enough portion of the Greenland ice sheet melted that disrupted the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift and plunged Europe into unprecedented levels of cold? Remember, most of Europe is at the same latitudes as Canada and is only warm because of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift.
'Or you could imagine that reality doesn't always obey these "prophets."'
I don't obey any prophets, certainly not the ones denying the reality of a warming planet.
Moose
More religious dogma, Moose.
I know the difference between weather and climate-- climate is accumulated weather. So why, every time there is some unusual weather-- flood, hurricane, drought, forest fire, high temperatures or lots of snow, the religious fanatics -- the "Warmists"-- race to the microphones to proclaim this absolute Proof of "Climate Change." Especially when their entire theory proves, if correct, ONLY global warming, NOT climate "change."
Now, would it be warming if the weather in Greenland, etc.? No, it would be weather. Beyond that, there would under that circumstance be ZERO evidence that such weather had been caused by manmade CO2. Just as there is now. I don't know what or whom you believe, I only know it is based in a blind faith and certainly not in science.
"Now, would it be warming if the weather in Greenland, etc.?"
Changing the subject again? Weather changes in Greenland do not melt a significant portion of the ice sheet; Climate changes do.
"...the "Warmists"-- race to the microphones to proclaim this absolute Proof of "Climate Change."
Fake news.
Moose
You are missing the point, as usual. You insist that the Greenland ice sheet is melting (at some rate) and that it MAY have such-and-such effect. You are making a prediction, then analyzing what may or may not happen as a result, and THEN you want to blame it on something, while for NONE of it do you have solid scientific evidence. And you cannot, because it has not yet happened. Only when someone successfully predicts the future, their idea MAY go from a hypothesis to a working/workable theory. In this case it cannot happen for 100 years, and the interim predictions from the models are far too inaccurate and imprecise to serve as a basis for public policy of any kind. The IPCC says so, clearly.
Your comments will be Fake News up until the time that the models match the real world data, 100 years from now, and manmade CO2 has been definitively proven as the cause. Look at my "find the rabbit" link and then tell me how, mathematically, the proposed Paris scheme is going to work.
You've completely missed the point or have tried to change the subject. Unsurprising, I know.
No one with any scientific credibility says that specific weather events "absolutely prove" AGW or GCC. Your suggestion that it regularly happens is fake news.
You also seem to be unaware that an increasingly volatile system can create strange effects in unusual places. It is not inconsistent with Global Warming that cold happens in an unusual spot.
Moose
"no one with any scientific credibility" is correct, but scientific credibility is not required to get your stupid statements all over the mass media. Like Alexandria what's-her-face who says "we just need to invent things that haven't been invented yet" to solve the problem. Or Al Gore's prophesy of 20 feet of sea level rise, or polar bear extinctions, or mass migrations of people, or sinking Pacific islands, or glaciers melting, or snow being a "thing of the past." Some call these people "environmentalist wackos" and for good reason. But they make great media fodder.
I would say that WHAT regularly happens is Fake News. If you believe that stuff, you are not being scientific, either.
Yes, a volatile system ("chaotic" is the word the IPCC uses) produces unusual things. And by definition those things cannot be predicted. So why are we trying to /prevent/ something we know we cannot predict?
Those stupid statements are about events that become increasingly likely in an increasingly chaotic system. That they have yet to happen is not an argument against the science, as much as you would prefer it to be.
Moose
OK, you believe it is possible to predict things in a chaotic system. The thousands of climate scientists, their computer models, and the actual measured data all disagree with you. The ONLY evidence you have of future "climate" are those computer models, and they have failed miserably. Give it up.
"...predict [specific] things..."
Never ever have said such a thing. Try again.
Moose
OK, those who believe we will have a perilous future believe they can predict future climate, and you seem to be agreeing with them. Better?
If you want to believe a warming planet will be all wine and roses for the existing life on the planet, you're welcome to do so. Those who see the natural world with eyes wide open know that the perilous future is already here.
Moose
And yet it is the consensus of climate scientists that up to 2 degrees of warming would actually be beneficial. Are you ever going to believe what the climate scientists say, or are you just going to continue quoting the Book of AlGore?
As for the "already here" idea, nowhere in the /real/ science is there support for the idea that the current climate is at all out of the ordinary, and you CERTAINLY can not prove that the current climate was almost entirely caused by man-made CO2.
Jerry,
Source please regarding 2 degrees being good?
Also, how will we stop it from going above 2 degrees?
"...and you CERTAINLY can not prove that the current climate was almost entirely caused by man-made CO2."
Thankfully, as I'm not a climate scientist, it's not on me to prove that. That's isn't to say that the climate scientists haven't already done so, however.
Moose
John, I am disappointed that I could not find a scientifically credible source for the statement that 2° of warming could be beneficial. All I could find were numerous ASSERTIONS to that effect, by various people. And that to me says Something very important. I hope you will accept one fundamental reality: that qualitative assertions are not quantitatively-proven scientific fact, on either side. How do we stop the globe from becoming 2° warmer? We don't. We can't. We cannot predict the future, not even with computerized climate models that were known to be flawed, and have proven to be flawed beyond any usefulness. If the world is going to get warmer, then it will get warmer, for good or ill. Did you find the rabbit yet?
There is so much incorrect science in your post that we are all now stupider for having read it.
The relationship between CO2 and temp is well established in the scientific literature. And it's NOT what YOU think it is.
Moose
Jerry,
These folks gave pros and cons to warming if you remember...
I'll let you get back to screaming at the oncoming storm...
Moose, are you saying we CAN predict the future, and we know EXACTLY what it will be? You have been reading something besides the scientific literature, which conclusively proves otherwise. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is well established, and it isn't what you think it is. Or what the climate models think it is. And remember, 95% of CO2 is from natural sources. Talk to the rabbit.
IF you want to worry about the Earth getting warmer, feel free to trouble yourself that way, but trying to say that humankind must radically change and impoverish themselves to "stop" it is conceit, folly, or irrational and probably all three.
John, I can't stop the storm and neither can you. I won't scream to stop it; that's ineffective. What are you going to do, hold your breath?
About those "negatives"? Have you noticed that absolutely none of them rely on the distinction among manmade-CO2 warming, natural CO2 warming, and natural warming? The positives are all based on total CO2, natural + manmade.
Jerry,
The folks working to make humans clean up their act and treat our world don't bother me... Besides I strongly believe in...
"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."
No screaming for me.
OK, excellent personal choice. So why do you allow yourself (and me) to be coerced into spending billions upon billions to change things we cannot change? What of wisdom?
Because I have little influence, and I believe human choices and actions are a causal factor.
And my paying a couple of hundreds of dollars per year is a pretty cheap price to pay to potentially keep my great grand children safe and enjoying this great Earth.
There is no down side on this one from my perspective.
OK, so what are you doing about that giant asteroid about to annihilate us all? The same thing you are doing about climate change, demanding that we all "pay a few hundred dollars a year" and jump up and down to move Earth out of its path?
We keep going around and around on this. I offer definitive proof based on real data, and in agreement with the climate scientists themselves, yet you continue to believe whatever Al Gore and the other religious prophets of doom have told you. I guess it is easier to deny the science than it is to deny the Faith.
I don't think your "definitive proof" is very convincing.
I think it is cherry picking of quotes and data in an effort to promote a conspiracy theory.
Sorry. Keep screaming. I think I will shut this thread down. It seems to be getting no where and I am sure another opportunity to discuss this issue again will arise sooner or later.
Post a Comment