Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by StuM

The Schwerer Gustav of course!

The Heavy Gustav, Hitler and generals inspecting the largest caliber rifled weapon ever used in combat, 1941

There, I've finally brought the Nazis into it. Surely the thread will get closed now

Wow! Climate Change, Guns, and Hitler! HE HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK!!!

Seriously, thanks to everyone in this thread for (mostly) keeping it civil. Good show!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Folks...MMGW is a Political Movement, not an Environmental Movement.

As is the well-organized opposition to the scientific finding of AGW. There you go, guys.

Nice of you to have my back for a change.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Because he loses every time he tries to make it a scientific debate?

Sorry, I don't think I've ever tried to provide a scientific debate in these threads. I'm calling ******** on the portrayal of the "debate" itself. I don't deny that there's a few legitimate and scholarly skeptics in our midst... but overall, most of the anti-AGW types here and elsewhere are driven by their political views and not by the science, though many they think they've found something "scientific" to validate their view.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

and than you have Third day who says it all "is" a political conspiracy but fails to understand that that is how the crimin..err..political system works.

Fair point Simon, and even if one takes Third Day's comments at face value it doesn't necessarily mean that the scientists themselves who are trying to prove the AGW position are part of any such political conspiracy. They may have other, more innocuous motivations for defending their positions, but not necessarily sinister. It's the politically appointed dept. heads at lead agencies such as NASA & NOAA who's objectivity is more worrisome, at least in my mind.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As is the well-organized opposition to the scientific finding of AGW. There you go, guys.

Nice of you to have my back for a change.

OK, can we back track a bit.

What exactly is "the scientific finding of AGW" ?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Wow! Climate Change, Guns, and Hitler! HE HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK!!!

Seriously, thanks to everyone in this thread for (mostly) keeping it civil. Good show!

For a minute there, I thought I was going to read "Thread Closed" just below your comments. Stu did, after all, make an impressive effort.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, I don't think I've ever tried to provide a scientific debate in these threads. I'm calling ******** on the portrayal of the "debate" itself. I don't deny that there's a few legitimate and scholarly skeptics in our midst... but overall, most of the anti-AGW types here and elsewhere are driven by their political views and not by the science, though many they think they've found something "scientific" to validate their view.

Here ya go L-E, just another attempt to show how easy it is to use politics to manipulate science-based views from both sides of the issue, and potentially everywhere in between. You'll undoubtedly like this version better, but it will do nothing to advance the discussion from the last 100 posts or so which have finally focused, at your suggestion, on the science:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

An entire branch of anti-AGW science is dedicated to learning teaching jack **** and maybe a little bit more about climate; a very large section of the fossil fuel industry and their political friends in Congress and at the Heartland Foundation are doing very well at persuading many (particularly those of a politically-sympathetic conservative bent) that what you just said is absolutely, positively true, with any bogus "science-based" dissent merely a ruse, and attributable solely to the exact same people and interests who foisted the tobacco lies on us.

Lots more to learn teach, of course, but when we can so that fewer and fewer people can easily dismiss our experts because we so many ignorant, uneducated, religious, and politically-biased conservatives -- who all belong to the Republican party of course -- don't like the message... hard to make progress in any direction until all dissension from our mainstream, establishment position has been quashed.

President Trump Clinton has all Americans' best interests at heart and will fix this whether some like it or not. It is, after all, for their own good since the scientific debate is over.

Better?? OK good. Now let's get back to the science.

[transmitterdan]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-2000s-or-not/

Summary: They can't explain why the models didn't predict the hiatus. But with just 2 recent years of data (14-15) they are sure the hiatus is over.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Better?? OK good. Now let's get back to the science.

Not better.

For someone who dislikes having others put words in your mouth, you don't much seem to mind doing it yourself...

Is it not true that you're pushing your own agenda as least as hard as me or any of the other "Pro-AGW" commenters? Copy-paste "science" is simply the provided ammo.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not better.

For someone who dislikes having others put words in your mouth, you don't much seem to mind doing it yourself...

Is it not true that you're pushing your own agenda as least as hard as me or any of the other "Pro-AGW" commenters? Copy-paste "science" is simply the provided ammo.

If I was trying to put words in your mouth, I certainly would not have used different colored fonts to delineate clearly my words from yours. Instead, I simply would have mischaracterized what you wrote and falsely attributed it to you. But I shouldn't have to tell YOU how that type of forum gamesmanship works, right?

Instead, my edits were designed to illustrate why ascribing someone's views on scientific issues to that person's personal politics can only go so far. My edits also tried to demonstrate how easily such attempts at marginalizing other's opinions in this way can be turned around. I'm sorry if my attempt at irony and maybe a little humor were lost on you.

Actual and potential biases on both sides of the issue based on money, reputation, politics, religion, and several other factors have already been pretty thoroughly hashed out in this thread. But if you have something new to share, by all means. Otherwise, why not follow your own proselytizing and stick with the science, along with the prospect of technological advances raised in the OP?

I'm not sure how being less certain than you are about the mainstream AGW position (whatever that is) is pushing an "agenda." I've certainly never denied that AGW likely exists or even that some of its more drastic predicted impacts don't have support from factions within the scientific community. In other words, there is science that tells us they might be true. But I also believe, even if you and others do not, that there is legitimate science that challenges these mainstream conclusions and it is also credible. But I'm probably more open to such challenges because I haven't read a persuasive retort to the contravening satellite data, the 97-99.9% "consensus" reports have been debunked imho, and I don't believe political leaders have been representing these and other underlying facts in a responsible and honest way.

The important thing is that I genuinely look forward to having my assumptions, biases, and potentially erroneous preconceived notions challenged. No other way to gain more certainty, imho. If me and 50% of my fellow citizens who have doubts are wrong, after all, then the consequences could be very serious. But I don't get the sense that you've given any thought or credence to the consequences of the skeptics being right! Or maybe you're just uncomfortable with the complexities of all the uncertainty? It would be soooo much easier if everyone just went along with what they are being told . . . . Surely the politicians would appreciate it!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

The Schwerer Gustav of course!

The Heavy Gustav, Hitler and generals inspecting the largest caliber rifled weapon ever used in combat, 1941

There, I've finally brought the Nazis into it. Surely the thread will get closed now

Naah... the US would use the technology stolen from Saddam.. (that ginormous cannon buried into a hillside that could shell Israel according to 'They who must be obeyed or they cry'..) along with all the advanced WMD they found..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, I don't think I've ever tried to provide a scientific debate in these threads. I'm calling ******** on the portrayal of the "debate" itself. I don't deny that there's a few legitimate and scholarly skeptics in our midst... but overall, most of the anti-AGW types here and elsewhere are driven by their political views and not by the science, though many they think they've found something "scientific" to validate their view.

Sod all political about thinking your all spouting outa yer asses.. nobody has a clue.. just a lot of assumptions and suppositions mixed up to create a '******** Baffles Brains' scenario.. much less the scientists.
The Politico's love it.. another way to screw the Serf's.
Talk about playing darts with a blindfold..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Did Global Warming Slow Down in the 2000s, or Not? - Scientific American

Summary: They can't explain why the models didn't predict the hiatus. But with just 2 recent years of data (14-15) they are sure the hiatus is over.

1. Yet another of those dramatically back lit photos of water vapour so beloved of the MSM whenever they talk about AGW. Hardly "scientific" is it.

2. "The black line shows temperatures as predicted by climate models,"
No it doesn't. It shows the hindcast temperatures as fitted to climate models. (Either that or those climate models were able to predict the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanoes. That would be some feat!)

3. "Almost all scientists disagree with this." Not just "climate scientists", but all scientists"! And the evidence for this is?

4. "The only time the PDO was neutral in recent history was between 1971 and 2000, Fyfe said. In that case, the temperature record reflects the response to human-caused climate change, he said "

Horsepuckey! For most of that period ( the period with all the warming), it was strongly positive. IOW, he's straight out lying!

5. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

During a strong El Niño ! And it's only a record according to Karl's last "pause buster" tweaking of the data.
My prediction? The hiatus will be back when the coming El Niña takes effect.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As is the well-organized opposition to the scientific finding of AGW. There you go, guys.

Nice of you to have my back for a change.

Presumably, if atmospheric CO2 is a driver of increased global temperatures, then one would see an increase in the trend of warming as atmospheric CO2 increases. If that is not the case, then the theory would be pretty much falsified, don't you think?

Pull quote on a paper in the journal Nature: "Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s (study lead author) framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically."

In other words, increasing CO2 = decreasing rates of warming - and warming by the way that has been going on since long before CO2 became a source of tax revenue.

The theory is pretty much falsified, don't you think?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But I don't get the sense that you've given any thought or credence to the consequences of the skeptics being right!

AGW is the poster-boy for any proactive action towards mitigating man-made pollution and damage, and promoting sustainability. Many anti-AGW posters here have made that pretty clear. Not all... but many. Perhaps most. The great eco-conspiracy must be stopped!

So, from an earth-centric view, all the eggs are currently in the AGW basket. Do we work with the best information we have, do we plan a little for the future... or can the work of experts be thwarted and neutralized successfully by special interests who feel threatened?

If the skeptics are right, why aren't they working within the system? Why aren't these skeptic sources you champion subject to peer review? Because conspiracies, right? Secret or not-so-secret government agenda?

So, anyway... what are the consequences of the skeptics being right, yet we get proactive on AGW, promote sustainability, and reduce all the other human-caused insults to the planet?

Originally Posted by Delfin

The theory is pretty much falsified, don't you think?

For that to be true, you'd have to believe that the vast majority of the climate science field have f'ed up, yet can't bring themselves to admit it... and the scientific process has broken down. Is that what you believe?

As I understand it, the predictions have always acknowledged short-term uncertainties, there's more warming to consider besides net air temp (...ocean temp, anyone?), and that the warming trend will reveal itself more clearly in time. In other words, the theory will be more clearly proven, or falsified, down the road. Of course, today's question is - do we have good enough information now to justify taking preemptive action?