Ice Age on the Way!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Lovely story. Important story.

Notes:

• What happened re H pylori is the exception, not the rule. Science works pretty good.
• The truth about the cause of peptic ulcers was finally proven scientifically, not by a pack of of lobbyists and their political partners slagging scientists, and trying to do an end-run around the normal scientific process.
• The two problems (peptic ulcers and AGW) are not quite comparable.
• If the same focus and resources that goes into climate research was poured into ulcers, I'm certain that h. pylori would have been discovered alot sooner.
• I don't think I've ever called any bona fide researcher or scientist a "denier". Mostly because even the most critical CC critics who know what they're talking about don't go around telling us how wonderful CO2 is, or that the human component is insignificant. I reserve that word for the willfully ignorant.

I do believe its time for me to call it Goodwin's climate law .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Lovely story. Important story.

Notes:

• What happened re H pylori is the exception, not the rule. Science works pretty good.
• The truth about the cause of peptic ulcers was finally proven scientifically, not by a pack of of lobbyists and their political partners slagging scientists, and trying to do an end-run around the normal scientific process.
• The two problems (peptic ulcers and AGW) are not quite comparable.
• If the same focus and resources that goes into climate research was poured into ulcers, I'm certain that h. pylori would have been discovered alot sooner.
• I don't think I've ever called any bona fide researcher or scientist a "denier". Mostly because even the most critical CC critics who know what they're talking about don't go around telling us how wonderful CO2 is, or that the human component is insignificant. I reserve that word for the willfully ignorant.

Lake-Effect,

So, If you were seated at the head of the 1616 inquisition board and a “fringe” character like Galileo were to come before you.... how would you and your “flat-earther” friends respond to him?

Modern Science awaits your overwhelming consensus type answer.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

So what if climate change is as bad as the consensus tells us? Where do I find the deniers when we're starving, facing mass immigration, and so on?

I'm sure they will give me a little extra of their share of their food for being wrong. Right?

Cool story, bro. Too bad history doesn't agree with the consensus.







^^ This is just a super quick random grab of googled data.
More detailed data on food production here

Of course, is it so that these food shortages are going to happen in a decade's time or more? Just like always.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Lovely story. Important story.

Notes:
.[*]I don't think I've ever called any bona fide researcher or scientist a "denier". Mostly because even the most critical CC critics who know what they're talking about don't go around telling us how wonderful CO2 is, or that the human component is insignificant. I reserve that word for the willfully ignorant. [/LIST]

really ? I just wish they hadn't deleted the entire threads where you did just that towards Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Judith Currie . Both well respected climatologists .

[OzePete]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Pete question in your opinion.

As an individual that has been forced to deal with a majority of your national power being alternative produces how were things last winter?
Would have been nice to fire up a couple of natural gas fires power stations wouldn't it ?
What was the economic cost ? And the cost in human suffering?

I have nothing against renewable power systems but I have lot against our taxpayer money subsidising these otherwise inefficient alternatives. Then to add insult to the mix, they are mostly owned by overseas investors cashing in on our crazy situation.

All forms of power generation should be without any subsidy.. period.
We have gone from among the cheapest power in the world generated by coal to near the most expensive, thanks to solar and wind.. Gee I'm glad we are such a smart country.. not!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think climate change deniers should get airtime either. Like anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists, flat-earthers... there simply isn't the evidence around to put those fringe viewpoints on anywhere near an equal footing.

So much for the "marketplace of ideas." OK, within reason that is. But if you're suggesting another one of these bogus analogies we often hear that's used to support the "certainty" of climate change science, then I disagree.

To take one of your examples, if you're a secular, science-based thinker, which of the following would be more confirming of your own view of evolution, as well as have the best chance of persuading others who may be like-minded? Encouraging a civil debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, or silencing, shunning, shaming, labeling or stereotyping the creationist to the point where he/she takes his or her beliefs underground? If you believe, as the overwhelming majority of people obviously do, that the earth is not flat, what better way to convince any remaining fence-sitters to your position than to hear what a bona fide flat-earther has to say? Is it better to have a bunch of moronic "neo-Nazis" goose-stepping around with their Walmart torches, than to deny them a permit to march and have them go back to their mothers' basements to plan real harm to innocent people? Obviously this can be carried too far, but are you starting to catch on?

What any of us may take personal offense at isn't necessarily what's best for society at large. How did people ascribing to a party of so-called "Progressives" become so afraid and therefore utterly intolerant of IDEAS & OPINIONS that differ from their own?? Have you considered that perhaps those who's outlook & opinions differ have decided they'd rather have their children & grandchildren take their chances adapting to a warmer planet than being governed by such oppressive, sanctimonious people?

I never said your position on CC was evil, shameful, ignorant, primitive, or any of the litany of insults you -- and you especially -- have hurled at those who don't follow the party line. On the contrary, I've acknowledged many times that your more mainstream position obviously has the weight of the evidence behind it. But popularity alone doesn't always carry the day with science, and the position many of us have espoused in these threads -- that CC exists, is likely having some level of impact, but hasn't been sufficiently proven to be catastrophic -- is right in line with prominent skeptics in the scientific community with professional creds as respectable as any scientist who supports the more mainstream view.

So why the hostility? I don't doubt your intentions (maybe ), but I also have to agree with Group9 that your intolerant approach to those who disagree with you is just about the worse way I can imagine of winning over converts. Or maybe, as I often suspect, you'd rather inflame people so the thread is shut down? That would be in line, it seems, with the modern-day "Progressive" approach to opinions they find disagreeable.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[*]I don't think I've ever called any bona fide researcher or scientist a "denier". Mostly because even the most critical CC critics who know what they're talking about don't go around telling us how wonderful CO2 is, or that the human contribution is insignificant. I reserve that word for the willfully ignorant. [/LIST]

You DO have a sense of humor after all!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cool story, bro. Too bad history doesn't agree with the consensus.







^^ This is just a super quick random grab of googled data.
More detailed data on food production here

Of course, is it so that these food shortages are going to happen in a decade's time or more? Just like always.

unfortunately the shortages are already impacting us .

ice age farmer :: grand solar minimum crop loss map

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by OzePete

I have nothing against renewable power systems but I have lot against our taxpayer money subsidising these otherwise inefficient alternatives. Then to add insult to the mix, they are mostly owned by overseas investors cashing in on our crazy situation.

All forms of power generation should be without any subsidy.. period.
We have gone from among the cheapest power in the world generated by coal to near the most expensive, thanks to solar and wind.. Gee I'm glad we are such a smart country.. not!

I heard from friends on your end of the earth there were some that had to actually make a conscious decision to " heat or eat" and that's not ( in my opinion ) acceptable.

[nelly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that is the problem then.
Because I don't bow at the alter of AGW .
Just reinforces my statements of the MMGWC being a religion .

Why don't you think man-made climate change is a thing?

We're putting a lot of crap into the air that isn't good for us or good for the ecosystem at large.

I don't think anyone has seriously argued for the survival of the planet here. Plant isn't going anywhere. I think we can agree there.

[nelly]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cool story, bro. Too bad history doesn't agree with the consensus.







^^ This is just a super quick random grab of googled data.
More detailed data on food production here

Of course, is it so that these food shortages are going to happen in a decade's time or more? Just like always.

This is the same argument over and over again.

"Hasn't happened yet, never will!"

As you certainly know from looking at any market, things go up - until they go down.

(in reality warming weather will be good for crops - until it isn't)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, turning to a reactionary, blatantly partisan Tory tabloid like the Daily Mail as your "more credible" source is hilarious.
...

Actually, that "Daily Fail" article was quite accurate. The problem is people are misunderstanding what they are reading. The headline was quite specific:

"Lack of sunspots could bring a 'Space Age record' for cold temperatures above Earth in a matter of months, NASA scientist warns".

and the key message in the body:

"these changes high above Earth are unlikely to have much of an impact on weather at the planet's surface"


It's worth noting that the thermosphere doesn't start until about 50 miles above the surface and extends a long way out (the ISS actually travels in the thermosphere). The molecules in it may be "hot", but the total heat content (energy) involved is small because there is very little gas there - it's close to being a vacuum.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

This is the same argument over and over again.

"Hasn't happened yet, never will!"

As you certainly know from looking at any market, things go up - until they go down.

(in reality warming weather will be good for crops - until it isn't)

Nature doesn't quite work like the stock market. Be sure to get back to us with an "I told you so" when, or most likely - if, it all comes tumbling down.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

Why don't you think man-made climate change is a thing?

We're putting a lot of crap into the air that isn't good for us or good for the ecosystem at large.

I don't think anyone has seriously argued for the survival of the planet here. Plant isn't going anywhere. I think we can agree there.

didn't say we are not polluting the system but I just don't feel that humans have any significant effect on the temperature of the earth .
Considering that the driver of all things earth is 1.3 million times the size and mass of the planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Lake-Effect,

So, If you were seated at the head of the 1616 inquisition board and a “fringe” character like Galileo were to come before you.... how would you and your “flat-earther” friends respond to him?

Modern Science awaits your overwhelming consensus type answer.

No, you don't get to claim my hill; I'm the progressive, science-backing one here.

Most CC deniers are (choose one)
A) Younger and/or more-educated and/or liberal
B) Older and/or less-educated and/or conservative


Show all work.