Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

If both Trump and Clinton are frozen in said sheet of ice...absolutely we would be better off.

[Reefmagnet]

We'll that's the irony. If greenhouse gasses caused global cooling, a lot more of us would be onboard the 97% train. Because cooling would be like a huge problem with historically proven negatve consequences.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

{ a whole bunch of crap }

Coward. AGW denier, to boot, despite your fluffy words. You just can't keep the skeptic facade up. Fine. It's your right.

If ad hominems truly signal defeat, you've just run up the white flag. Message understood.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Coward. AGW denier, to boot, despite your fluffy words. You just can't keep the skeptic facade up. Fine. It's your right.

Talk about hate....
But then again that is pretty typical of the MMGW Cultist

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Talk about hate....
But then again that is pretty typical of the MMGW Cultist

Wow. Speaking of hate, did you miss Exile's post? I hope he didn't pull anything, or completely empty his spleen.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Probably missed it while ripping up my teak deck...but I am apposed to nastiness from either side on an issue that no matter what we believe will go nowhere..why...because even if the problem is real, it costs too much to fix. We can't even fix our national debt that will crush the USA WAY before any affects of CO2 will. So the entire issue is a waste of time...right or wrong.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

If both Trump and Clinton are frozen in said sheet of ice...absolutely we would be better off.

No doubt. It sounds like you also don't appreciate a choice btwn. a profoundly dishonest liberal candidate from NYC who's running as a Republican, and a profoundly dishonest liberal candidate from NYC who's running as a Democrat.

Whodathunk?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. Speaking of hate, did you miss Exile's post? I hope he didn't pull anything, or completely empty his spleen.

I thought you preferred my more "soothing" touch? Just wait 'til Delfin gets back.

[SV THIRD DAY]

My problem is I have principals that don't just flap in the wind and go Ra..Ra..go team. If both candidates are boobs, then it is in the best interest of the Republic to stand up and say it...not to just vote for my team and wave the flag. It was driven home to me when my daughter registered to vote for the first time and asked me who I was voting for. Now she knows I'm a Mark Levin style Constitutional Conservative, so how could I look her in the eye and say I'm violating my principals and voting for either El Trumpo or HiLiary? I just can't do it....

It sucks sometimes having principals...but at the end of the day that is all you really have.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by iyamwhatiyam

I think we can simplify this debate by asking the question; "Would we all be better off if NYC was covered by a sheet of ice?"

NYC... debatable.

Washington DC... We'd be much better off if it was under 200 ft of ice.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by iyamwhatiyam

I think we can simplify this debate by asking the question; "Would we all be better off if NYC was covered by a sheet of ice?"

Well it would seem to solve some of the war mists problem with to many people on the planet. Becides would anyone actually miss NYC?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, you can, actually. Apply decadal or multidecadal smoothing to the annual data and tell us what you see then.

(decadal smoothing doesn't hide trends that play out over several decades or more)

I'll leave that pointless exercise to you.

Proxy data always have lower resolution than instrumental data. The Earth is a big low-pass filter and whenever you apply a low-pass filter, you attenuate amplitude. Disregard of this very basic bit of signal processing theory is the foundation of most hockey sticks.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Looking at the unsmoothed tel,s much more about the real world. Looks like we are almost as warm as around 400 ad ( the roman warm period ). And if you look at the historical we will soon experience a rather sharp decrease in global temps. The record for the mwp looks the same insofar as it shows a temperature spike warmer than today closely followed by a sharp drop in mean temps. ( I don't believe in coincidence) .

Actually, we can't tell that. The resolution of 1600 or 1000 year old proxies means that we only know the average temperature then over a longer period. You can't tell how high or low individual years were back then.

You would need to compare that "peak" with the average of say the last 30 years, not the current temperature to make a valid comparison.

And I'd also like to see the error bars on those lines

[CamWrenRoo]

Well, having spent the last 20 minutes or so scrolling through this discussion, I have to say, with respect for all of you, that no amount of denial will make a problem go away. Here's the real issue, in my opinion...
Public policy is directly related to public opinion. If you want to drive your cars, burn your diesel motor, order stuff from ebay and enjoy avocados shipped from Mexico in the dead of winter... You are contributing to the problem. You vote with your dollars spent, not your ballot at election time. All of the bills passed by our government won't do **** without action from the masses.
Hey, don't assume that I am finger wagging over here - I too am plenty guilty. I love avocados...
I'm not going to put a bunch of energy into arguing whether or not climate change is real. I know the facts, and I base my opinions upon science alone.
But, we all know that the real debate is not over the science. It's over the politics.
My former chemistry lab professor at a small community college in VA and I got into this debate, in the middle of class. He is quite politically conservative. Despite all of the data and an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community as a whole, he still stands by the argument that we wee little humans couldn't possibly cause the planet to change. Any data to back it up? Nope. Anything besides political bias? Nope...
It's all politics, let's not kid ourselves.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a valid point.

Also consider:

• "AGW is a scam" If AGW is used for the purpose of increasing taxes, regulations and the size of government by leftists, then yes, it is a scam. Since all those trillions to be spent will produce no effect, then the scam nature of the concept is confirmed. You can't actually buy the Golden Gate Bridge from the guy on the street because that is a scam. You can't actually impact projected warming by spending trillions, so that is also a scam. Get it?
• "there's no consensus" That's true. There is no consensus. The fact that you think there is is immaterial, but it is clearly a falsehood that has been debunked many times.
• scientists are fudging their results. Climategate! If Climategate were the only instance of scientists fudging results it might be different, but there are many such examples, so this is also a true statment.
• climate scientists are just going along for the grants Well duh. Of course they are. They have to make a living and feed their families just like people with other jobs. McDonald's employees will tell you Big Macs are good for you. Climate scientists will tell you that we're all going to die if they don't get more money for research. Same difference.
• NOAA, NASA, [insert any science organization/institution here] - they're all in on the scam Not necessarily, although since they all depend on government funding, and since the AGW scam is mostly about increasing government funding, only a fool would think there was no connection between the tendency of such agencies to support the meme and the fact that lots of money has been available to those entities that are yelling that the sky is falling the loudest.
• any western government that backs IPCC is in on the scam Again, not necessarily, but quite naturally governments like to find reasons to increase their power and funding. World ending crises are just the thing, true or not.

How do you imagine that is affecting climate science? Well reality is good for any scientific discipline. The fact that warmist Kool-Aid drinkers like you insist on maintaining scientific ignorance and the relentless use of ad hominems in lieu of a coherent argument has done far more damage to climate science than anything any skeptic has ever done.

You ARE an AGW denier, based on your past posts. If that rankles you, it should. However if you'd like to clearly restate your stance regarding whether human activity is contributing significant additional amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere AND whether or not this additional CO2 is causing warming, I would be happy to reconsider.

Ok, fine. You want to continue to use an obvious lie it's fine with me. I suspected you had no interest in truth, so your using an obvious falsehood simply confirms that suspicion. Big surprise.