Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Trust me, I'm a scientist....

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012...scientist-says

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-the-recovery

The "medieval warm period" was removed from Mann's infamous hockey stick graph because it was a localised climate anomaly. Or something.

Polar sea ice extent since 1979...


Of course, nothing to indicate the same phenomena on the above chart. ;-)

Source:http://www.carbonbrief.org/five-char...faring-in-2015

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

I immediately thought of your question when I came across this site:

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

Read it and weep for humanity

You're able to find a few unofficial sites painting some worst-case scenarios, so all of climate science and their work must be out to lunch?

Yet you freely quote from and link to sites whose only reason for being is to find inconsequential factlets, take them out of context, inflate them to pseudo-plausability...

Question then: if there are genuine scientific flaws in the current findings, why isn't there a "counter" IPCC of actual specialists who have properly coalesced all these 'flaws' into a credible counter-theory... instead of a cottage-industry of little denier/skeptic sites.

This space reserved for the pie chart showing almost zero scholarly papers opposing AGW. Y'all know it by heart, now.

Why is the central finding of AGW holding up for so long, despite all these flaws? Are all these scientists simply not as smart as a bunch of bored cruisers with right-wing/libertarian tendencies?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're able to find a few unofficial sites painting some worst-case scenarios, so all of climate science and their work must be out to lunch?

Yet you freely quote from and link to sites whose only reason for being is to find inconsequential factlets, take them out of context, inflate them to pseudo-plausability...

"...weapon of mass destruction...catastrophic..."

John Kerry Calls Climate Change a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' - ABC News

Unofficial, indeed...

Continual distortion (lying) has been the erosive factor in the MMGW argument.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Correct, though I use rupture as a thought experament, that is a 6 or 11 dimension membrane rupture into a null, as there was nothing to rupture into. My simple thinking is the expansion might have been a point source in a different dimension that could have created several null point locations at the exact instant as the 6 or 11 unfolded or folded into 4.

Oh sure, it could have been a single point source as well. Just what I ponder some days.

I suppose ... 11 dimensional branes colliding could theoretically produce an expansion into 4 dimensional (or any other number) what we now call spacetime. But that is one of the serious problems with string theory (which is really five distinct string theories). It produces any number of outcomes, but nothing (so far) that is definitively testable.

String theory has been a grand, and on paper, amazingly successful set of theoretical constructs. It appears to resolve, or elegantly explain, some otherwise odd aspects of the universe, but it's failure to produce a single falsifiable prediction leaves me skeptical. It has even led some cosmologists and theoretical physicists to seriously suggest that the mere fact we are asking these questions IS the proof required, i.e. the anthropic principle. This, to me, is a circular argument that gets us nowhere.

At this point I am more compelled by work on quantum gravity which is working to unify the Standard Model with general relativity.

[SV THIRD DAY]

A) What happens to your funding/career if you Buck the MMGW myth....bingo...

B). Why are all the pro MMGW papers pushed by MMGW advocates?

C). Why does the public bit care?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

A) What happens to your funding/career if you Buck the MMGW myth....bingo...

B). Why are all the pro MMGW papers pushed by MMGW advocates?

C). Why does the public bit care?

A) Spencer and Christy get all of their funding from the government - NOAA, NASA, DOE. Lindzen collected over $3,000,000 in NSF funding during his career. Curry, Legates, Pielke, Easterbrook are/were NSF funded.

B) Because science accepts AGW - overwhelmingly.

C) Huh?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

"...weapon of mass destruction...catastrophic..."

John Kerry Calls Climate Change a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' - ABC News

Unofficial, indeed...

Continual distortion (lying) has been the erosive factor in the MMGW argument.

So you think the US Federal government is knowingly lying or distorting the importance of CC?

(gummint haters, no need to respond; you are already on record about this)

[Mike OReilly]

Here's the thing I don't get about climate change deniers (which are not the same as critical skeptics). It takes a phenomenal leap of paranoid faith to come to the conclusion that virtually all climate scientists are, to paraphrase our friend here, continually lying about their research and the data they amass. Every international geophysical science institute, every major scientific journal, every nation, and like it or not, the vast majority of researchers, have all come to the same conclusion:

#1. Rapid climate change is real.

#2. Human civilization is a significant contributor. How significant (minor to principal) is still an active an open question, but significance (in the scientific sense) is not.

To suggest that all these institutions, nations and people are colluding in a grand and collective lie is truly amazing. Is there any other example of collusion (real or imagined) that works at such scale? I can't think of one.

Getting beyond #2, what is not clear are the full impacts rapid climate change will have on us. Ecosystems are rapidly changing, but what does that mean for us as a civilization, and as a species? We already know some of the obvious outcomes: low-lying areas will becoming increasingly unlivable due to rising sea levels. So to for areas impacted by sustained drought and flooding. Other areas will benefit, such as mid-Africa and some areas of Canada.

The planet has seen this kind of climate change in the past, and will again in the future. The issue is not the planet, it is us. Our civilization has existed in a remarkably calm and narrow climatic range. As a species we've proven ourselves highly adaptable. We can exist in nearly all ecosystems this planet now offers, so I have no doubt we will continue to adapt to changing conditions. But the outcome and the choices of our adaption are unclear, especially as we move out into future.

BTW, I mention critical skeptics. There are some, but they almost never get mentioned in the political discussion b/c they are mostly on the side of saying the scientific consensus is skewed too far towards the conservative side. There are significant scientific voices arguing that groups like the IPCC are leading us down the garden path with their overly mild assessments of the data. This, in turn, fosters the continued political failure we see such as at the recent Paris conference.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Didn't answer the question...what happens to your career as a scientist if you Buck the MMGW religion....you know because you are one of the attackers of heritics. As the ones fired and they will tell you. Relax the world will do nothing, we won't die, and you can move back to butter is bad, bran muffins are good and Fat is bad for you. (remember those false trendy Consensus Science scams).

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So you think the US Federal government is knowingly lying or distorting the importance of CC)

Ahhh...can you show one thing John Kerry was right about...ha ha ha....come on...that was too easy.

Of course the feds are....it fits into their and the leftist agenda of control and power.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Didn't answer the question...what happens to your career as a scientist if you Buck the MMGW religion ...

Could be reworded as: "What happens to your career as a scientist if you Buck the known facts - are publicly consistently wrong?"

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Could be reworded as: "What happens to your career as a scientist if you Buck the known facts - are publicly consistently wrong?"

Who gets to pronounce Facts Facts?
The politically and religious motivated or....

Known facts like the Big Bang Theory?
Remember how anyone that questioned it was a Denier of science but now are proven right?
Remember the consensus of the Big Bang....well it popped but will anyone apologize to the scientists who were ridiculed and forced into silence? Na....

You are taking the bait.

There is no Consensus in real science.
In fact when pop culture, politics, AND "Science" all are in agreement....run baby run.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Didn't answer the question...what happens to your career as a scientist if you Buck the MMGW religion....you know because you are one of the attackers of heritics. As the ones fired and they will tell you. .

Name one who was fired. Then we will know who to ask.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name one who was fired. Then we will know who to ask.

Must I do every thing for you...its been posted online here now a few times. But I can dig it up for you again...not everyone keeps a cut/paste file ready to fling out....

[jackdale]

I have just discovered a conspiracy. It seems that all the Canadian are AGW folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CTvjwt1bvY