Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

After 289 pages, I just did myself a favor and removed myself from the Auto Notification of new posts. I'll still drop by from time to time to see the merry-go-round but this will at least give the MMGW Cultists a chance (kinda like a safe space).

And besides, Page 300 won't have anything new anyway.

Enjoy the Self-Flagellation...

[[Translation...my wife caught me screwing off with a long list of boat chores to do so I've been grounded from Cruisers Forum for a week...ha ha ha]]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It's already been demonstrated from the IPCC's own models and data that the question of what to do about AGW has been answered. Nothing, because if AGW is happening there isn't anything that has been proposed by warmist loons that will have the slightest effect, and nothing if AGW isn't happening and it continues to not happen as it hasn't been happening for two decades because it is just leftists imaging the latest problem that can only be solved with their peculiar brand of fascism.

And no, the heat is not hiding in the deep oceans as you fantasize. But perhaps under your bed...

Honestly, as delusions go, yours is particularly fascinating, if only from a clinical perspective.

Ooh, the scientific insight is positively dripping off of that.

Me and the Royal Society will just be over here deluding some more, ok?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

After 289 pages, I just did myself a favor and removed myself from the Auto Notification of new posts. I'll still drop by from time to time to see the merry-go-round but this will at least give the MMGW Cultists a chance (kinda like a safe space).

And besides, Page 300 won't have anything new anyway.

Enjoy the Self-Flagellation...

[[Translation...my wife caught me screwing off with a long list of boat chores to do so I've been grounded from Cruisers Forum for a week...ha ha ha]]

How sensible. Plus, if those pesky skeptics stop posting clearly stated and peer reviewed science that contradicts the AGW meme, the warmists will be able to tell each how smart they are without fear of being laughed at by grown ups. Keep them from playing on the freeway and endangering the public good, don't ya know.

Let me know if someone joins this thread who is actually interested in scientific debate. Until then, enjoy the weather.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Let me know if someone joins this thread who is actually interested in scientific debate.

I did just that, and you went AWOL on most of them. Not my problem that your points were such weak sauce.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ooh, the scientific insight is positively dripping off of that.

Me and the Royal Society will just be over here deluding some more, ok?

Well, at least the Appeal To Authority is a less juvenile logical fallacy than the Ad Hominem, so I'll give you credit for that.

As I said, enjoy the weather, the greening of the planet and a debate with yourself.

[Mirage35]

Yeehah!

I've been ignoring this thread for as long as I could, but it's a slow evening and I just couldn't resist taking a look. It's everything I expected, except that you're all so busy shouting at each other that I can't even figure out who's on which side of the argument.

Which leads me to say ..., oops, wait,

Must not get involved in religious arguments ...

Must not get involved in religious arguments ...

Must not get involved in religious arguments ...

[Exile]

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.

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.

Because the issue is not about "every price increase and income reduction." It is about the artificial and unnecessary increase in the cost of energy which winds up causing needless death & poverty.

I try and base my opinions after reaching a better understanding of an issue. Even on an anonymous internet thread, I feel it's best to at least try and not come across as looking foolish and uninformed. It wastes peoples' time, and is counterproductive to any hope of getting my point across. You might realize this too someday, once you get past your temper tantrum phase that is.

I never "confirmed" that what was posted concerning deaths of poor people was "inflammatory and incorrect." What I wrote was that I did not fully understand the issue except in the most basic and general sense as explained above. You'd be better off challenging Delfin & Third Day directly rather than so grossly misstating what I have written. Delfin has already provided an example, so have at it. You immediately and rashly assumed the worst intentions of these guys, so don't expect any help from me.

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?

I don't understand what you're talking about here. Maybe you're just "emoting" again? Either way, I hope you never tried out for your high school debate team. Drama Club maybe?

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

I won't reject or accept any issue out of hand that I don't fully understand. You know, like CLIMATE SCIENCE. Which begs the question as to why you are so utterly convinced of only one side of the issue that you feel entitled to be dismissive and antagonistic towards others who's views differ. My personal take is that it serves as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for reducing your own carbon "footprint" in more substantive & meaningful ways than emotional rants on an internet forum.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

the [poverty] issue is not about "every price increase and income reduction." It is about the artificial and unnecessary increase in the cost of energy which winds up causing needless death & poverty.

You want a civil debate, but a National Enquirer-grade cheap shot is A-OK and defensible... as long as it's not pro-AGW. Understood.

you feel entitled to be dismissive and antagonistic towards others who's views differ. My personal take is that it serves as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for reducing your own carbon "footprint" in more substantive & meaningful ways than emotional rants on an internet forum.

Yes... the most effective way to foster civil debate is to use just the right amount of ad hominems and a nice juicy troll. Well-played, sir. Well-played.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You want a civil debate, but a National Enquirer-grade cheap shot is A-OK and defensible... as long as it's not pro-AGW. Understood.

If suddenly you would prefer a civil debate, then explain why the points that were made about environmentalism causing needless deaths are cheap shots or whatever you'd prefer to call them. Insults standing alone only reflect poorly on you. But before you do that, please stop mischaracterizing my comments on this subject.

Yes... the most effective way to foster civil debate is to use just the right amount of ad hominems and a nice juicy troll. Well-played, sir. Well-played.

Since you are suddenly so interested in civil debate, why don't you also explain why the 3% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions the IPCC estimates is so misleading. Your conclusion, not mine, and it might just get the discussion back to some sort of adult level.

[newhaul]

Deep ocean not warming.
Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Since you are suddenly so interested in civil debate, why don't you also explain why the 3% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions the IPCC estimates is so misleading.

First, what does this statistic convey to you? In your opinion, does this datapoint support or weaken the case for AGW?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Deep ocean not warming.
Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

Fast forward two years... Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean
(linked paper)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Fast forward two years... Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean
(linked paper)

That is your refute . I post a report from NASA and you post an article from time mag online come on at least try to get legit sourced report to counter with .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Deep ocean not warming.
Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

This study is at depths of 1995 metres or greater.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Fast forward two years... Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean
(linked paper)

This study is at depths of up to 700 metres

Apples and oranges.


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

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This study is at depths of 1995 metres or greater.







This study is at depths of up to 700 metres

Apples and oranges.


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

Yep I know but it just goes to show the warmists dont seem to do exactly what they keep accusing us deniers of doing which is not reading the reports that are presented before making a rebuttal post.