Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy | Science Daily

Let's get real. U.S. law mandates that every new regulation that is adopted under the putative authority of an Act of Congress be subject to a formal cost-benefit analysis. Although rarely complied with (esp. with the current administration), many of the "remedies" being proposed by advocates of the CC movement are extremely costly, and most people with even a rudimentary understanding of basic economics understand that, whether imposed by the govt or private industry, the costs will be borne by them through higher energy costs and taxation.

If you still don't understand the connection this article is discussing b'twn. CC and economics, then try selling your position honestly by telling people they should pay more for energy because it's necessary to save the planet. Does it mean they don't care about the planet? No. It only means that most people have more immediate priorities, and are already crunched by a lackluster economy and rising costs of living (except for fossil fuels in recent times, thankfully). In other words, people will only be induced to put solar panels on their roofs if the energy savings outweigh the up-front costs in a reasonable period of time. This is exactly why neither L-E nor Jack have installed them for their homes.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ha ha. Go fish.

Anyone willing to blithely assert that people are being killed by anti-AGW actions, without regard to how offensive and incorrect a statement that really is, is not going to be persuaded by reasonable arguments. It's a hot-button, you get off on pushing it. Go you.

In other words, you make stuff up because you have no coherent argument. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I agree that Delfin's deft cut'n'paste skills and nonstop putdowns are indeed formidible, so I can understand your man-crush on him. Interesting that someone who's that dismissive, condescending and abusive can still be in your good books, as long as they sing the right tune. I guess I'm just jealous.

Embarrassingly childish, L-E. This isn't a popularity contest. Save the whining & weeping over beers with Kenomac at the next boat show. He is an RN after all, and is used to caring for people who can't help themselves.

Delfin is not arguing with science, he's just being extra forceful lawyering with the same old denier crap that's all been defanged years ago. A good retelling doesn't make fables come true or add truth to lies. Your fawning aside, he's not scored any science-based hits. He has not holed the good ship IPCC or the finding of AGW.

You'll have to explain this one a bit better for me. You still haven't responded to being repeatedly asked which "finding of AGW" you're referring to, the IPCC is the body that acknowledges that humans are only contributing 3% of all CO2 emissions, and thus far I haven't read any "defanging" of what appear to be several fundamental issues, most notably . . .

(i) the 97% natural vs. 3% anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio;

(ii) the long-term sat-based temp data disparities with the surface data;

(iii) the negative feedback/carbon sink issues;

(iv) the recent inaccuracies in the modeling;

(v) all the alarmist predictions that failed to come true.

Like Jack, Delfin is citing the science he is relying on. But unlike Jack, he is explaining the scientific rationale for his positions, and responding quite specifically when challenged. It doesn't necessarily follow that his science is "right," but it does lend credibility to many of his posts. And with such a complex, politically-infused scientific issue, credibility counts.

There's no attraction to fighting the same crap over and over, especially when the audience is deaf to it.

Only your very narrow audience is deaf to it. Probably safe to say most people would like to know more from both sides before voting to commit themselves to significantly higher costs of living.

The thread has mostly become just another anti-AGW echo chamber. Delfin's made denial fashionable again. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Seems like you may be the only one interested in being fashionable, or should I say politically correct. It's actually harder to take the contrarian view, especially with the barrage of ad hominems about religion, political party, education, nationality, etc.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Delfin is persuasive for like all of the two minutes it takes to google up that he's just flung out some long-ago discussed and discredited factlet. Not something I expect that you're doing with his pontifications.

Not generally, no. But I do try and read links and such from both sides. As solid and officious as they sometimes sound at first, it is always disappointing when someone then points out that there are conflicting scientific views, and can then back them up with cites of their own. That's when the original poster loses a lot of credibility.

Preaching to the choir is not persuasion, sorry. You're applauding the performance, not the content.

I must say I rarely encounter someone so oblivious to points of view outside his own choir, L-E. You don't seem to grasp that becoming more knowledgable about such views could help you with your own "performance," i.e. credibility. Delfin's ability to present his views well certainly helps, but it's the absence of answers to the issues I listed above which usually carries the day.

Cite?

Originally Posted by Delfin

Care to cite where I have put out a discredited factlet? Do be specific.

L-E -- You're the one who asserted that Delfin's facts have been discredited, amount to the same old "crap," can be refuted in a 3-min. google search, etc. Clearly it's now on you to substantiate your assertions. Maybe then you will actually be considered a part of the debate, at least the only one of your many emotional discussions you've participated in that has any relevance.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Does anyone have a problem with the US government increasing the number of bald eagles that windmills can kill without paying a penalty? They are doing it to reduce the cost for the windmill operators. Over a 30 year span the wind turbines could kill as many as 120,000 bald eagles under new proposed rules.

New Wind Energy Permits Would Raise Kill Limit of Bald Eagles But Still Boost Conservation, Officials Say - ABC News

No, no, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service killing more bald eagles is helping to conserve them. Btw, do bald eagles still enjoy statutory endangered or protected status? If so, then I don't understand how a federal regulatory agency can unilaterally authorize additional killings.

Or maybe I do understand . . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Obviously people don't die directly from your silly list. You obviously missed the general point these guys were trying to make, namely that increased costs of energy hurt poor people disproportionately. Poor people have less margins when it comes to their basic needs. Inability to meet basic needs leads to poverty, poor nutrition, less health care, less education, reduced opportunities, poor lifestyle choices, i.e. unhealthier living, more disease, and yes, premature deaths.

Well, duh. Every price increase and income reduction hurts the poor disproportionately. Saying 'X kills poor people' is both inflammatory and incorrect, as you just confirmed. Don't know why you didn't call the guys out for saying that, but hey.

Now of course we capitalists all know that poverty is most often a combination of poor choices and lack of drive. Is society truly at fault when someone simply won't rise to meet the challenges and opportunities of a truly free existence? So it's surprising to see you guys suddenly blame poverty on outside influences, like energy costs associated with mitigating AGW. That's the slippery slope to socialism.... Are you now, or have you ever been a socialist?

Do I necessarily buy in to some of these guys' assertions that environmental polices have contributed to the huge nos. of deaths they are citing? No, but I also don't know enough about it to simply reject it out of hand.

Obviously false and offensive "fact" ... you won't reject out of hand. How openminded of you.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Did anyone else understand that?

You do know there's a difference between the past and the future, right?

Seems pretty clear to me. Warmists go on about how much suffering is caused by warming, that it is already a problem, that 400 ppm is the doomsday threshold, so SV is just asking you to show who has been harmed. South Pacific Islanders? Nope, the land mass of the islands that were supposed to sink beneath the sea has been growing. Polar Bears, maybe? Nope, they're doing fine.

On the other side of the ledger, warmists, where politically successful have made energy more expensive. They brag about it. When you make energy more expensive you make food more expensive. The draining off of corn for ethanol and its effect on grain prices is proof of that. And when you make food more expensive those living on the edge of survival anyway can be expected to be pushed over the edge in some cases. I know you don't like to hear it, but actions have consequences. I am cool voting against leftist loons who favor AGW sanctions because I think the science doesn't support the basis for their actions. I own that position and am happy to defend it.

Perhaps you should man up and accept the consequences of your actions and come up with some other defense of your position other than whining about how nasty those who disagree with you are.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? | Skeptical Science

Sooooo....

Milankovitch cycles primarily alter CO2 and not global temperatures, aye?

How's the weather over there in Fantasy Land?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, duh. Every price increase and income reduction hurts the poor disproportionately. Saying 'X kills poor people' is both inflammatory and incorrect, as you just confirmed. Don't know why you didn't call the guys out for saying that, but hey.

Now of course we capitalists all know that poverty is most often a combination of poor choices and lack of drive. Is society truly at fault when someone simply won't rise to meet the challenges and opportunities of a truly free existence? So it's surprising to see you guys suddenly blame poverty on outside influences, like energy costs associated with mitigating AGW. That's the slippery slope to socialism.... Are you now, or have you ever been a socialist?



Obviously false and offensive "fact" ... you won't reject out of hand. How openminded of you.

Gee, sorry you're offended. But 40,000 dead old people in the UK because they can't adequately heat their homes should remind even you to be cautious when you claim that making energy more expensive has no effect on anyone.

Winter death toll 'to exceed 40,000' - Telegraph

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

In other words, you make stuff up because you have no coherent argument. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

A thousand anti-AGW sites full of non-specialists all repeating the same cherry-picked crap does not constitute a coherent argument.

If and when there's a scientifically rigorous set of theories and climate models that do a better job than what we currently have, and these conclusively prove that the current findings are wrong, then you'll have a point.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Gee, sorry you're offended. But 40,000 dead old people in the UK because they can't adequately heat their homes should remind even you to be cautious when you claim that making energy more expensive has no effect on anyone.

Winter death toll 'to exceed 40,000' - Telegraph

Cos an abnormally cold winter and uninsulated old houses have nothing whatsoever to do with it. No indeed.

If your arguments are so thin that "AGW mitigation kills poor people" is meaty, that pretty much proves my appraisal of them.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Cos an abnormally cold winter and uninsulated old houses have nothing whatsoever to do with it. No indeed.

If your arguments are so thin that "AGW mitigation kills poor people" is meaty, that pretty much proves my appraisal of them.

I see. So the problem is an unusually cold winter and improperly insulated homes, not the fact that poor people can't pay their heating bills. You might want to think about the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, for heaven's sake stop digging.

“It’s a shocking fact that this winter, one older person could die every seven minutes from the cold. Yet with just under one million older people living in fuel poverty, many simply cannot afford to heat their homes to a temperature high enough to keep warm and well. We are calling for the government to commit to improving the energy efficiency of homes across the country in order to provide a long-lasting solution to the scandal of fuel poverty and preventable winter deaths.”

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I see. So the problem is an unusually cold winter and improperly insulated homes, not the fact that poor people can't pay their heating bills. You might want to think about the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, for heaven's sake stop digging.

“It’s a shocking fact that this winter, one older person could die every seven minutes from the cold. Yet with just under one million older people living in fuel poverty, many simply cannot afford to heat their homes to a temperature high enough to keep warm and well. We are calling for the government to commit to improving the energy efficiency of homes across the country in order to provide a long-lasting solution to the scandal of fuel poverty and preventable winter deaths.”

Well, if I thought for two seconds you were proposing to stamp out poverty, I'd be marching at your side. But you're just out for cheap anti-AGW points. How noble.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A thousand anti-AGW sites full of non-specialists all repeating the same cherry-picked crap does not constitute a coherent argument.

If and when there's a scientifically rigorous set of theories and climate models that do a better job than what we currently have, and these conclusively prove that the current findings are wrong, then you'll have a point.

Since the IPCC models have all failed, or at least according to IPCC lead authors they have, then your standard for what constitutes "scientifically rigorous climate models" is remarkably low. Try this for a new standard.....when IPCC models begin to predict what happens, put some weight on them. Until then, acknowledge they are fundamentally flawed since they don't work.

Figuring out why they don't work isn't hard. Climate sensitivity values are grossly overstated, negative feedbacks are under estimated and there is a well paid career for enterprising folk who want to make a living at the public trough predicting that only big government and higher taxes can save us.

Still waiting for you to provide an example of an argument I have made that is as easily refuted as you claimed. (crickets...)

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, if I thought for two seconds you were proposing to stamp out poverty, I'd be marching at your side. But you're just out for cheap anti-AGW points. How noble.

So, since you doubt that I am serious about the ill effects of high energy costs on the poor that is your green light to keep supporting pseudo scientific claptrap that is killing them? I've seen some incredibly brainless warmist arguments made, but you really do get the gold star for this one.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

L-E -- You're the one who asserted that Delfin's facts have been discredited, amount to the same old "crap," can be refuted in a 3-min. google search, etc. Clearly it's now on you to substantiate your assertions.

(i) the 97% natural vs. 3% anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio;
A factlet intended to mislead. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up 40% over the industrial age.

(ii) the long-term sat-based temp data disparities with the surface data;
Two of many available data sets, neither take in ocean temp.

(iii) the negative feedback/carbon sink issues;
see (i). Despite the sink responses increasing in step, CO2 concentration is still up 40%, and there's warming in step with that increase. The ability of current sinks to keep up indefinitely is not a given, and it's possible that certain outcomes (eg methane release from Arctic tundra thaw) would at some point provide positive feedback that swamps the increased sink.

Deforestation and ocean temp rise are attacks on the earth's carbon sinks.

(iv) the recent inaccuracies in the modeling;
There's good and there's perfect. Given the complexity of the problem, the models have been pretty good, and are getting better. Most of the experts say they are good enough. A few disagree.

(v) all the alarmist predictions that failed to come true.
I thought we were talking about science.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since the IPCC models have all failed, or at least according to IPCC lead authors they have

Define "failed".

So, since you doubt that I am serious about the ill effects of high energy costs on the poor that is your green light to keep supporting pseudo scientific claptrap that is killing them?

I doubt that you actually give a **** about the poor, except as a 'shock' talking point in your denier arsenal.