Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

Nobody knows jack **** about this ....

An entire branch of science is dedicated to learning jack **** and maybe a little bit more about climate; a very large section of industry and their political friends are doing very well at persuading many (particularly those of a politically-sympathetic bent) that what you just said is true.

Lots to learn, of course, but when we can so easily dismiss our experts because we don't like the message... hard to make progress in any direction.

President Trump will fix this.

[newhaul]

LE the real problem is not in the politics but In the MMGW camp itself. We all agree that the climate is changing. The problem with the MMGW camp is that some of them make time specific claims/predictions which have not come to fruition in the time specified. That in and of itself causes and casts doubts in peoples minds.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

LE the real problem is not in the politics but In the MMGW camp itself. We all agree that the climate is changing. The problem with the MMGW camp is that some of them make time specific claims/predictions which have not come to fruition in the time specified. That in and of itself causes and casts doubts in peoples minds.

There is more than ample evidence that the anti-AGW viewpoint aligns very tightly with political outlook, particularly in the US. It's almost axiomatic.

I'm not about to be convinced that everyone on this one side of the political spectrum are better scientific skeptics than the population at large... or the scientists themselves.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not about to be convinced that everyone on this one side of the political spectrum are better scientific skeptics than the population at large... or the scientists themselves.

Could you be convinced that the other side of the political spectrum are better scientific believers than the population at large...or just believers in what the scientists tell them, with faith that these scientists have the insight and purity of motivation to be trusted? (Rhetorical...I know the answer to this already.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
I thought Germany invested heavily in renewables but then had to retreat due to heavy costs and lack of feasibility, returning primarily to fossil fuels, incl. coal. Am I mistaken?

Originally Posted by Simonsays

yes, sorry
the goal for renewables for 2020 was reached last year.
the required update of the redistribution network is stalling (confed. power poker)
there was only 1 new coal plant approved in the last decade and nobody knows why, it's in the centre of the booming wind industry (Hamburg) and not capable of balancing the wind/solar output variation. that is mainly done using gas and water.
there was some turmoil beause the big energy providers (owned by towns and states, one of the reason energy prices are so high, it's their revenue) failed to take part in the change, but they are catching up now.

OK, thanks Simon. Probably just some right-wing propaganda I read in National Review or something.

[Exile]

Nah, we don't need The Donald to fix this one:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There is evidence that [a]n entire branch of mainstream climatology science is may be dedicated to learning teaching jack **** and maybe a little bit more about climate; a very large section of the renewable energy industry and their political friends in the White House are doing very well at persuading many (particularly those of a politically-sympathetic liberal-Democratic bent) that what you just said is true.

Lots to learn, of course, but when we can so easily dismiss our experts who have been providing us consistently reliable satellite data of the Earth's temperature for 27 years because we don't like the message that raises legitimate scientific doubts about the mainstream consensus... hard to make progress in any direction before the science becomes more settled.

Neither Presidents Trump nor Clinton will fix this.

Feel the Bern??

[newhaul]

Exile I like that one better than the original now that you filled in the blanks for me LE left out so much and I don't understand why he keeps trying to make it a political debate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There is more than ample evidence that the anti-AGW viewpoint aligns very tightly with political outlook, particularly in the US. It's almost axiomatic.

Hmmm. Now how is it that you know what sorts of politics those on either side of the debate actually have? Stu and others (Newhaul?) have stated that they initially were AGW believers, until they started looking more carefully into the underlying science and its use of statistics. Mike believes, sincerely no doubt, that some of the more extreme remedies proposed to combat AGW would also facilitate a transition to a more environmentally friendly, self-sustaining society which he favors. But Jack and others seem to believe that carbon taxes and other less drastic measures are what is required. And then there's the 43% or so of Americans with various positions on CC who decline to have any political affiliation and consider themselves independent. Are any of these examples conclusive as to party affiliation?

I'm not about to be convinced that everyone on this one side of the political spectrum are better scientific skeptics than the population at large... or the scientists themselves.

"Everyone?" On which "side of the political spectrum?" You really believe that all those who happen to agree with a conclusion as open-ended and vague as the science being "unsettled" also share the same political affiliation?

Who said anything about the scientists (and others who understand the science) being "better" than those on the other side of the issue? And which "population at large" are you referring to? The 50% or so in the U.S. and (average percentage) worldwide who are roughly split on the issue? Or the somewhat higher majorities in Canada and some parts of the developing world who supposedly favor the AGW position? And which of the many and varied AGW positions would that be? As has already been shown, the polling is entirely dependent on how the questions are asked. Were you not here for this particular round of charts & graphs?

The "scientists themselves?" Which ones? Have you not heard by now that many of the supposed "minority" who favor the anti-AGW side are both numerous and highly-credentialed? The vast majority of this minority accept the existence of MMGW, btw, but reject to varying degrees its impacts as opposed to natural forces. But we've covered that one too . . . multiple times. In any event, you do understand that scientific theory does not become "settled" by way of a popularity contest, right? I mean a popular guy like The Donald would never be able to settle the scientific debate, no matter how many votes he got.

Lots of backtracking, and dubious assumptions being made, at a rather late point in a thread with over 2600 posts.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Exile I like that one better than the original now that you filled in the blanks for me LE left out so much and I don't understand why he keeps trying to make it a political debate.

Because at it's core MMGW has nothing to do with Environmental Science, it is a political means to an end that the supporters of MMGW could not get otherwise. It's a political tool, plan and simple. So once you start to view the MMGW cultists in this "it's all about politics" light, then finally it all starts to make sense. Finally why their CO2 emissions are OK while others are bad, makes sense. Think about it. If they REALLY believed in MMGW and it wasn't anything more than a clever political tool to gain power and control then wouldn't THEY themselves want to save the world, give up their CO2 spewing lifestyles? But they don't....why?

Folks...MMGW is a Political Movement, not an Environmental Movement.

Remember, I was on the inside.
Wrote the papers.
Presented at the Environmental conferences.
Did the air CO2 testing from the Coal fired power plants.
Sat in the EPA building with the Secretary of the EPA and plotted the political talking points and strategy.
I once drank the KoolAid.....

Why did I get out....easy....once I saw the inside of the movement (not the useful idiots that just parrot the talking points of doom) I realized just how big of a scam the industry was, so I packed my bags and got out. It's why I don't seemingly have patience for these MMGW Cultists, I've seen behind the curtain and folks...it's ugly.

But alas...call me names...cite the bogus data and play the political game....me....I'm out and laughing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Exile I like that one better than the original now that you filled in the blanks for me LE left out so much and I don't understand why he keeps trying to make it a political debate.

Yet when accusations of financial malfeasance were cited against a George Mason U. climatologist who held the establishment position, L-E implored us to just "stick to the science." But now that he's uncomfortable with how the debate on the science is going, he ascribes it to politics. Next we'll get another backtrack to religion.

[newhaul]

Exile I never said I believed in agw or mmgw however I do believe the climate is changing and only time will tell what way it will swing next what with a la Nina forecast for this fall and estimated to last up to 18 months and the sun entering a significant minimum output event. My mind is looking to the next year or so to get a better idea what may happen in the next ten or more years as far as temps are concerned.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Exile I like that one better than the original now that you filled in the blanks for me LE left out so much and I don't understand why he keeps trying to make it a political debate.

Because he loses every time he tries to make it a scientific debate?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by StuM

Because he loses every time he tries to make it a scientific debate?

and than you have Third day who says it all "is" a political conspiracy but fails to understand that that is how the crimin..err..political system works.

if we can now get guns into this thread, i am sure we can shut it down in a few minutes.

[Reefmagnet]

We should use big guns to shoot cloud seeding chemicals into the sky. More clouds will result in reduced warming.

What type of guns would be best for this?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We should use big guns to shoot cloud seeding chemicals into the sky. More clouds will result in reduced warming.

What type of guns would be best for this?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The Schwerer Gustav of course!

The Heavy Gustav, Hitler and generals inspecting the largest caliber rifled weapon ever used in combat, 1941

There, I've finally brought the Nazis into it. Surely the thread will get closed now