Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I see. So when you said that you had reviewed "studies" that was another falsehood, since what you have referenced are news reports, and news reports that don't pertain at all to the Lomborg paper that proves that no matter how much money warmists throw at this problem, the outcome will be essentially zero on global temps, and which was what you were ostensibly refuting.

So again, where are the studies that challenge Lomborg's peer reviewed paper? If they don't exist and you just made it up, fine. If you meant that you can find warmists who don't like Lomborg because he thinks that CO2 fertilization will continue to benefit the planet and you want to use that as a red herring rather than addressing the main point of how little meeting the Paris Accords will accomplish, that is fine with me as well. Just trying to clear up what point you are trying to make, other than fill the room with smoke.

How exactly does it prove that I didn't read any studies because I also read some other things? I also some of a novel today. I also read a menu earlier.

Perhaps you are not aware of how to read a list of references. See the response I posted earlier that was published in along side the Lomborg article in the SAME journal in which he published. (i.e. hardly considered a "news report".) Look at the list of references. Go from there.

Then why don't you use this new fangled google thing to look for the MIT estimates of the impacts of the Paris agreements.

Just because you stopped looking once you found an article that supported your world view does not mean the rest of us did.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Evidence is so boring.

Just in case my opinion has been unclear

- AGW is real.

95% probable. 5% improbable.

- The costs outweigh any supposed benefits.

Debatable.

- We can do something about AGW.

Debatable.

..and that's how divided opinion works and why there is divided opinion on the subject.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Very funny.

N, P, and K are also plant food. Dump a whole whack of that on your lawn and watch what happens.

Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:

1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
doi:10.1038/nature13179

Our food crops evolved and were domesticated in much lower CO2 levels.

Complete rubbish. Predation goes up because there are more plants to eat and insects are more active in warm weather. Compromised nutritional value per gram could go down if you grow exactly the same varieties that are suitable for cold climates in slighter warmer climates, but why would we do that? I bred a primrose with a flower the size of a dinner plate in about 20 generations. When varieties are required to thrive in slightly richer CO2 environments it will take Sakata Seeds about a year to flood the market with options.

Your post shows zero understanding of plant biology.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Oh but we'll adapt". Of course whenever we ask a denier or skeptic to tell us what adaptation will look like, or cost... crickets.

Never consider a move to Hawaii. By the sounds of this, it would likely kill you.

Besides,

Our ancestors basked in different climes,
and walked sea shores with different lines.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

How exactly does it prove that I didn't read any studies because I also read some other things? I also some of a novel today. I also read a menu earlier.

Perhaps you are not aware of how to read a list of references. See the response I posted earlier that was published in along side the Lomborg article in the SAME journal in which he published. (i.e. hardly considered a "news report".) Look at the list of references. Go from there.

Then why don't you use this new fangled google thing to look for the MIT estimates of the impacts of the Paris agreements.

Just because you stopped looking once you found an article that supported your world view does not mean the rest of us did.

Oh, ok. So please post the studies you referred to, instead of news or opinion pieces that support your opinion. You do know what a study is, right? Peer review, data, that sort of thing? Opinion pieces in the same journal aren't studies, but I presume you know that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well perhaps. But if people like Lomborg are correct, and his argument is unrefuted, then we will be spending enough money chasing snipes that could have been spent doing something useful like, oh I don't know, feeding starving people. If you believe that pointing out how morally bankrupt that is should be viewed as juvenile, then I guess I don't know what to say.

But you are a competent mathematician, so divide 30 trillion by the 10 million children and adults who die of starvation each and every year and that is how much money would be available per person to keep them fed. Think you can feed someone for 70 years for $3 million each? I bet you could. Or, you could spend it reducing global temps by 1/5th of a degree.

I guess I just don't see this question as being as silly as you do.

Here's the moral bankruptcy part - poverty still exists, you know why this is so... so making the poor part of your anti-AGW argument is ... morally bankrupt. You have no use for the poor except as human shields in your lame position.

Anyway, your main arguments (1/5 degree! trillions wasted!) haven't suddenly become reasonable, so it's not like you have suddenly got anywhere with them, either.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Honestly kids, this whole discussion has become completely stupid. Look closely at what you wrote! I bet you would ashamed of yourself if that would be a a real debate where you would see eye to eye. (Or maybe not, and that represents who you really are?)

This is not even funny anymore. It's like Kindergarten, you ran out of arguments but instead of agreeing to disagree this has turned to a competition to find out who is the biggest Überbully.

But as I said earlier it says a lot of the posters character and would keep generations of psychology students busy.

I did try to warn you...

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Delfin

... so divide 30 trillion by the 10 million children and adults who die of starvation each and every year ...

This is your argument? Seriously?

But OK if you want to go down that dark alley. 2015 annual military spending worldwide was about 1.676x10^12$. Lets see that number in its full glory:

1,676,000,000,000.00$

Just stop military spending for two weeks and you would have the money to solve this one. Another 2 weeks and whether or not there is a solution to AGW would not even be a subject anymore.

Tell me how does anyone ethically justify spending this immense amount of money and resources to have the best equipment to kill each other in context to the above - by Delfin - mentioned starving children?

So please don't come along and say we cant afford to fund science, research and development or do anything about ACC. The resources are clearly there, the political will is not, and please do not bring starvation into this already ridiculous debate, because starvation is a completely different cup of tea.

But as you started it: One could argue that about 40% of food in the US is wasted. This food could feed about 50Mill people.

Delfin do you really want to go there. Honestly this is not typically for you.

(Sorry, I'm having a bad day and this thread filled with so much unbelievable stupidity is the ideal place to vent)

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

This is your argument? Seriously?

But OK if you want to go down that dark alley. 2015 annual military spending was about 1.676x10^12$. Lets see that number in its full glory:

1,676,000,000,000.00$

Just stop military spending for two weeks and you would have the money to solve this one. Another 2 weeks and whether or not there is a solution to AGW would not even be a subject anymore.

Tell me how does anyone ethically justify spending this immense amount of money and resources to have the best equipment to kill each other in context to the above mentioned starving children?

So please don't come along and say we cant afford to do anything about ACC. The resources are clearly there, the political will is not.

(Sorry, I'm having a bad day and this thread filled with so much unbelievable stupidity is the ideal place to vent)

Not that is a bit convoluted. What does military spending have to do with the fact that spending a whole lot of money reducing carbon emissions by 1% is pointless? How are the two connected? So how about this - let's spend less money on defense and also not spend a few trillion accomplishing nothing of value. Or are you arguing that we should do a lot more than the Paris Accords? If so, what in particular?

But I do agree with you - the obstacle to doing "something" is political because politicians don't want to bankrupt their nations on projects they are well aware will have no beneficial impact. Or, like China, whatever they say they have no intention of following through on commitments. So maybe we can invade them and make them reduce carbon. Of course, that would require a military and we got rid of that....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

This is your argument? Seriously?

But OK if you want to go down that dark alley. 2015 annual military spending worldwide was about 1.676x10^12$. Lets see that number in its full glory:

1,676,000,000,000.00$

Just stop military spending for two weeks and you would have the money to solve this one. Another 2 weeks and whether or not there is a solution to AGW would not even be a subject anymore.

Tell me how does anyone ethically justify spending this immense amount of money and resources to have the best equipment to kill each other in context to the above - by Delfin - mentioned starving children?

So please don't come along and say we cant afford to do anything about ACC. The resources are clearly there, the political will is not, and please do not bring in starvation, which is a completely different cup of tea.

But as you started it: One could argue that about 40% of food in the US is wasted. This food could feed about 50Mill people.

Delfin do you really want to go there. Honestly this is not typically for you.

(Sorry, I'm having a bad day and this thread filled with so much unbelievable stupidity is the ideal place to vent)

Not that I agree with it but military spending is like an insurance policy against a clear and present danger. Some might say that spending money on climate change mitigation is also like an insurance policy - which is kind of true - but the argument is that the danger is not necessarily clear or present.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

This is your argument? Seriously?

But OK if you want to go down that dark alley. 2015 annual military spending worldwide was about 1.676x10^12$. Lets see that number in its full glory:

1,676,000,000,000.00$

Just stop military spending for two weeks and you would have the money to solve this one. Another 2 weeks and whether or not there is a solution to AGW would not even be a subject anymore.

Tell me how does anyone ethically justify spending this immense amount of money and resources to have the best equipment to kill each other in context to the above - by Delfin - mentioned starving children?

So please don't come along and say we cant afford to fund science, research and development or do anything about ACC. The resources are clearly there, the political will is not, and please do not bring starvation into this already ridiculous debate, because starvation is a completely different cup of tea.

But as you started it: One could argue that about 40% of food in the US is wasted. This food could feed about 50Mill people.

Delfin do you really want to go there. Honestly this is not typically for you.

(Sorry, I'm having a bad day and this thread filled with so much unbelievable stupidity is the ideal place to vent)

There's some Aussie guy building a new Ark (Ark 1.1) in the US somewhere for $100m . That could help.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's the moral bankruptcy part - poverty still exists, you know why this is so... so making the poor part of your anti-AGW argument is ... morally bankrupt. You have no use for the poor except as human shields in your lame position.

Anyway, your main arguments (1/5 degree! trillions wasted!) haven't suddenly become reasonable, so it's not like you have suddenly got anywhere with them, either.

Yes, I have heard you say that I don't care about poverty but I don't recall you indicating how you know this. But if that is what you need to believe to keep from acknowledging that you are advocating for pissing vast resources down the drain so you don't have to acknowledge you're wrong and people will be dead as a result, then you have my sympathy and permission to think what you like.

The reasonableness of Lomborg's paper is in the data, which appears irrefutable. That is why those who criticize his result do so in opinion pieces rather than published papers that produce a different result, or like Mr F reference critiques that have nothing to do with his paper. The reduction targets for Paris are known. The Magicc model is as accurate as any IPCC model since it produces the same result. Spending trillions will reduce global temps by 1/5th of a degree by 2100, so that is an insane expenditure. Get used to it.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not that I agree with it but military spending is like an insurance policy against a clear and present danger. Some might say that spending money on climate change mitigation is also like an insurance policy - which is kind of true - but the argument is that the danger is not necessarily clear or present.

By far, the science is in, there is no argument that the danger IS clear. It's just it's not convenient given the cost to act on it.

Is it present? Well, we are certainly starting to see the effects in Australia. And that's nothing to what is coming.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

By far, the science is in, there is no argument that the danger IS clear. It's just it's not convenient given the cost to act on it.

Is it present? Well, we are certainly starting to see the effects in Australia. And that's nothing to what is coming.

What exactly are those effects? I haven't noticed any.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not that I agree with it but military spending is like an insurance policy against a clear and present danger. Some might say that spending money on climate change mitigation is also like an insurance policy - which is kind of true - but the argument is that the danger is not necessarily clear or present.

Well, I hate to belabor the obvious, but if you stop military spending it hardly means that peace will suddenly break out. But you could stop spending any further money on climate mitigation and almost nothing would change.



For the warmists on the thread, up and until they address the tail end of this graph that shows what they can accomplish against what they want to spend, they will have no credibility at all.

But I'm open to hearing what else we should do to reduce carbon further, as well as the scientific data that shows what effect that will have and at what cost. We won't hear that - we'll just hear more ad hominems; your argument is stupid; you're a denier; Roy Spencer is a Christian, etc. etc. etc.

Which is why sensible people pay no attention to them at all, and clearly I am not a sensible person or I wouldn't bother either.