Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

This post is a great example of how long people can keep repeating the same things over and over again! 43 pages...wow.
Seems to me that the only effect that this kind of discussion (if you can call it that) has is to cause people to fortify the defense of their own existing opinions.

No it's all done to see how much we can stir up the alarmists. It's fun!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

OK, since we're having fun, here's some more red meat to chew on. A psychology researcher finds that there is a relationship between political affiliation and responses to questions around scientific facts. In the paper: Did the Arctic Ice Recover? Demographics of True and False Climate Facts, researchers find.

This graph only goes to show how little anyone really learns from going to college.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Muller of BEST fame?

Horse pucky. Despite what he claimed, he was never a sceptic. He did however pull off a real PR coup for his BEST dataset with his claimed conversion.

Here's his real stand over many years:"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

Well, at least we cleared that one up.

[fryewe]

“This is an energy intensive country. God gave us the directive to use the resources we have here
on Earth and take care of them. But many times it appears people want to give up our standard of
living.

When you drive your gasoline-powered automobile, and you leave from your natural gas-heated
home on an asphalt-coated highway to go to your office, heated by natural gas, and you turn on your light switch and have your room flooded by electricity and you’re nice and warm in your clothing made from hydrocarbon products and drinking out of a bottle made from ethane, and you’re really mad at oil and gas companies and upset about whatever the industry has done and you use the product and you carry your protest sign, I have only one thing to say to you -



you’re welcome.”

John Alexander
Vice President, Dugan Production Company

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

You know it, the big bang, actually is the granddaddy of climate change.

So true. One wonders what astronomical "climate" existed prior to the Big Bag. Now THAT would be rapid climate change . Best of all, the only one we can blame for all this dietythropogenic climate change is Neptune, or God or Arausio .

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

While the big bang assumes a single point source, allowing for a single point source in 11 dimensional space, could create multiple rupture points in 4D space or rather inflate to create 4D space. Sort of like an object that is a 2D point, but also a line in a 3D, we can have a single point rupture in a higher (or is it lower) dimensional space that appears a something else in a different dimensional reference frame.

Multiple ruptures creating 4D space would easily explain some of the large structures of the universe.

Perhaps ... although it's important to realize (as I know you do) that nothing was ruptured or "banged" in the Big Bang. Dimensional space simply came into existence out of nothing. Well, not nothing ... everything. Well, not everything, b/c nothing actually contains everything. It's all very simple really.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

“This is an energy intensive country. God gave us the directive to use the resources we have here
on Earth and take care of them. But many times it appears people want to give up our standard of
living.

When you drive your gasoline-powered automobile, and you leave from your natural gas-heated home on an asphalt-coated highway to go to your office, heated by natural gas, and you turn on your light switch and have your room flooded by electricity and you’re nice and warm in your clothing made from hydrocarbon products and drinking out of a bottle made from ethane, and you’re really mad at oil and gas companies and upset about whatever the industry has done and you use the product and you carry your protest sign, I have only one thing to say to you -

you’re welcome.”

John Alexander
Vice President, Dugan Production Company

Excellent point fryewe. Couldn't have said it better myself. We need a systemic approach if we are to change the developed world's contribution to climate change

That was the point you were trying to make, right .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Perhaps ... although it's important to realize (as I know you do) that nothing was ruptured or "banged" in the Big Bang. Dimensional space simply came into existence out of nothing. Well, not nothing ... everything. Well, not everything, b/c nothing actually contains everything. It's all very simple really.

Thanks Mike. That also really cleared everything up for me. Much obliged.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

What are you on about, mate? You brought up religion recently… I know "Third Day" is the name of an Xtian rock band and a google search of the name seems to bring up a lot of religious references… and I also know that the chief antagonists of this idea are creationists. Are you a creationist?

He's been asked questions along those lines before, and I've never seen him answer them. Reminds me of the story of the Apostle Peter, who was afraid to acknowledge his Lord and Master.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... It does lend itself to the point that peoples' own background, orientation, outlook & personal politics play a role, but that's also true for both sides!

Absolutely.
But, IMHO, my "worldview" happens to be supported by the (generally agreed) facts.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

“This is an energy intensive country. God gave us the directive to use the resources we have here
on Earth and take care of them. But many times it appears people want to give up our standard of
living.

When you drive your gasoline-powered automobile, and you leave from your natural gas-heated
home on an asphalt-coated highway to go to your office, heated by natural gas, and you turn on your light switch and have your room flooded by electricity and you’re nice and warm in your clothing made from hydrocarbon products and drinking out of a bottle made from ethane, and you’re really mad at oil and gas companies and upset about whatever the industry has done and you use the product and you carry your protest sign, I have only one thing to say to you -

you’re welcome.”

John Alexander
Vice President, Dugan Production Company

When your God, or good fortune, offers you an abundance of wealth, one way to respectfully say thanks is to not try to consume it all as quickly as possible like a g0dd4mn starving pig at a buffet. Just sayin'

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When your God, or good fortune, offers you an abundance of wealth, one way to respectfully say thanks is to not try to consume it all as quickly as possible like a g0dd4mn starving pig at a buffet. Just sayin'

You don't shop on "Black Friday," do you? Neither do I.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When your God, or good fortune, offers you an abundance of wealth, one way to respectfully say thanks is to not try to consume it all as quickly as possible like a g0dd4mn starving pig at a buffet. Just sayin'

Oh well, so much for the relative "civility" sailorchic was just braggin' about. You may wanna try the science forums.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Excellent point fryewe. Couldn't have said it better myself. We need a systemic approach if we are to change the developed world's contribution to climate change

That was the point you were trying to make, right .

Just providing a link to one view, similar to Jack's approach.

But I will say that having spent my formative years with open wood fires as the only heat in a single wall frame house, without indoor plumbing for potable water nor gray or black water, without electricity for much of the time (not widely available until after REA), with winter foods limited to those that were home canned or harvested on winter garden plots, and the daily routine set by the cutting and collection of wood and kindling for cooking and heating and the manual cranking of the pump windlass for drawing water from the shallow well that provided house and livestock needs, I don't long for the "good old days" before the widespread availability of oil and gas products and electrification, and the labor saving appliances that came with it. One entire day of the week that was set aside for clothes washing and drying requiring intense activity rather than sitting and waiting for the buzzer while "multi-tasking" has been freed up.

I know, I know...you walked barefoot nine miles in the snow uphill both ways to go to school in a one room schoolhouse after a full day's work...

Your "systemic approach" sounds like government control or taxation to encourage and discourage activities and products. With government's track record of (in)effectiveness and (in)efficiency, I'd prefer to take my chances with a market unencumbered by government.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fryewe

...
But I will say that having spent my formative years with open wood fires as the only heat in a single wall frame house, without indoor plumbing for potable water nor gray or black water, without electricity for much of the time (not widely available until after REA), with winter foods limited to those that were home canned or harvested on winter garden plots, and the daily routine set by the cutting and collection of wood and kindling for cooking and heating and the manual cranking of the pump windlass for drawing water from the shallow well that provided house and livestock needs, I don't long for the "good old days" before the widespread availability of oil and gas products and electrification, and the labor saving appliances that came with it. One entire day of the week that was set aside for clothes washing and drying requiring intense activity rather than sitting and waiting for the buzzer while "multi-tasking" has been freed up.
...

And I don't see why we should condemn billions of the world's population to continue to live under those conditions on the unproven premise that a bit more CO2 in the air will destroy us all.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Give me control of the Raw Data and I will show you what ever you want the data to show.

In somewhat the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day, it seems the esteemed 3D has somehow contributed something that I agree with.

He has given us exactly the right reason for why it wouldn't be very helpful for all the raw data to be provided to self-described doubters and deniers: these same people are only interested in searching for any small thing to exploit. This is evident from the very words of Steve McIntyre himself (in the comments) that were in a link posted here earlier. In a nutshell, he's perfectly happy to "audit" the data, but declined the invitation to independently produce his own version of a climate record, demurely suggesting that he would need to be paid to do so.

Curious... because you'd think that any number of anti-AGW "institutions" like Heartland could provide manpower sorry personpower and funds enough to underwrite just such an exercise, which of course must then receive the same rigorous set of peer reviews and challenges. Here's why they won't: unless they're incompetent or very devious, they are going to come up with just about the same temperature graphs that the climate scientists already have done. All these niggles that keep most of the doubters up at night have already been factored in, or simply don't materially alter the results.


"You want the Data? You can't HANDLE the DATA!!"

Here's another piece of data the deniers and most skeptics won't touch: simply survey every postdoc in climate science. Compared to crunching all the raw climate data, this would be orders of magnitude easier to achieve. Find all the serious institutions involved in climate research, contact all the PhDs on staff, ask a few questions:
- are you primarily involved in climate science? (Y/N)
- are you in agreement with the most recent conclusions reached by the IPCC? (Y/N)
- are you satisfied that the conclusions have been reached in accordance with best scientific practice? (Y/N)
- do you believe that these conclusions are serious enough and sufficient to justify global action to try to curb AGW? (Y/N)

If this was done, we could put the whole question of consensus to bed. (This is of course why no-one in the anti camp will bother to)

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh well, so much for the relative "civility" sailorchic was just braggin' about. You may wanna try the science forums.

That wasn't directed at anyone, it was simply stating our current Western approach to fossil fuels.

(Did you feel it was directed at anyone in particular? you Hemi pickup-driving guy you )