Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
So despite this having been stated again & again & again, and maybe for the benefit of newcomers to the thread, it's worth asking L-E again which "scientific finding of AGW" is he asserting there is "well-organized opposition" to?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

How about this one? Or here?

“People ask me if I believe in global warming. I tell them, ‘No, I don’t,’ because belief is faith; faith is the evidence of things not seen. Science is evidence of things seen.”

—Katharine Hayhoe, climatologist and evangelical Christian[1]

Ah yes, I figured it wouldn't be long before you attributed "non-belief" in your personal pet politics to religion. In fact, I think I predicted it only a few pages ago.

Don't hide behind the latest IPCC report or the home page from the NASA website, just state what you think is the "scientific finding of AGW" that is drawing such wrong-headedness based on politics, religion, nationality, gender, education, ethnicity, skin color, psychology, [fill in blank here], [whatever I missed], [whatever you, American Psychology magazine, or the Wash. Post will come up with next], or all of the above.

You keep bringing this up, so it's not like asking about solar panels. In fact, let's get it over with so we can get back to the posters who are asking and getting responses about the actual science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The first post suggested we can use technology to solve this problem. How many posters on this thread believe we should immediately task our best scientists and engineers to create cheap, safe and abundant non-carbon power sources? I have not heard one AGW believer say that we should. For me that is a huge signal that the fundamental issue is not really about AGW.

Especially since the thread title and OP is in fact about technological advances.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The first post suggested we can use technology to solve this problem. How many posters on this thread believe we should immediately task our best scientists and engineers to create cheap, safe and abundant non-carbon power sources? I have not heard one AGW believer say that we should.

Then you really aren't looking.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac:
I leave this thread for just a few days and one of us backslides to the who's greener than who argument.....

Well Mr. Lake effect... Should I bring out my home photos of the solar panels again? And you can show us yours?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We know clearly where you stand, given your position on the California drought. And again, I'm sorry that your solar panels weren't the financial win you were hoping for.

You mean we can all have such insight about an internet forum poster because of an opinion that may be different from mainstream environmental thinking? If so, then I'd say you're the one who's truly gifted here.

Apparently solar panels aren't the financial win you were hoping for either. Or was it just the aesthetics that prevented you from putting your money where your mouth is?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't hide behind the latest IPCC report or the home page from the NASA website, just state what you think is the "scientific finding of AGW" that is drawing such wrong-headedness based on politics, religion, nationality, gender, education, ethnicity, skin color, psychology, [fill in blank here], [whatever I missed], [whatever you, American Psychology magazine, or the Wash. Post will come up with next], or all of the above.

You keep bringing this up, so it's not like asking about solar panels. In fact, let's get it over with so we can get back to the posters who are asking and getting responses about the actual science.

What?!? It is exactly what I linked to. AGW is a looming problem that requires further attention and better efforts to mitigate. Need it in a bigger font?

I don't share the hallucination that I can do better climate science than the experts, or that climate science has screwed up, or there's some sort of green/soshulist conspiracy behind AGW. Boring, I know.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently solar panels aren't the financial win you were hoping for either. Or was it just the aesthetics that prevented you from putting your money where your mouth is?

Hey, whatever. As long as you're not bored.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Then you really aren't looking.

That post was desirous of "more efficient" energy which is a code for just using less. That's what all the AGW alarmists I have heard say too. Why should we use less energy? Energy generates wealth and improves our standard of living. Why should we not have as much abundant, cheap, safe energy as we want? Why do all the solutions have to be about less usage?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

That post was desirous of "more efficient" energy which is a code for just using less.That's what all the AGW alarmists I have heard say too.

I never said 'less'. Or '"more efficient" energy'.

Why should we use less energy? Energy generates wealth and improves our standard of living. Why should we not have as much abundant, cheap, safe energy as we want? Why do all the solutions have to be about less usage?

Use all the energy you possibly can. It would be nice if the energy source you use, and the way you use it, doesn't screw up other people or the planet. That's the ask, basically.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What?!? It is exactly what I linked to. AGW is a looming problem that requires further attention and better efforts to mitigate. Need it in a bigger font?

Not a bigger font, but maybe narrowing it a bit from the entire IPCC report, or the entire NASA website. I already know how to find those, and read through most of them when Jack first cited them a long time ago now. OK, if you can't articulate on your own which "scientific finding of AGW" you feel so many are actually opposed to, then just cut & paste from your own links. Oh wait, that would require a little time & study . . . .

Originally Posted by StuM

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Seems rather apt about now, no? Ah well, it's only an internet forum, and L-E's starting to get all preachy & whiny again anyway.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...maybe narrowing it a bit from the entire IPCC report, or the entire NASA website. I already know how to find those, and read through most of them when Jack first cited them a long time ago now. OK, if you can't articulate on your own which "scientific finding of AGW" you feel so many are actually opposed to, then just cut & paste from your own links. Oh wait, that would require a little time & study...

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly which hair you're trying to split.

Am I mistaken that you, for example, don't accept the IPCC and/or NASA positions on AGW, or that there's a valid scientific "consensus" (-cringe-) around the magnitude of the problem?

Putting the shoe on the other foot, I've repeatedly asked you and others to be specific about (or to just name) the actual, (non-fantasy) IPCC/COP21 proposals for mitigating AGW that you fear would end civilization. Crickets...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly which hair you're trying to split.

If you think I'm trying to split hairs then you're having more trouble figuring out the contours of the debate than I thought. The "scientific finding of AGW" that you explicitly referred to a couple of pages ago encompasses a broad range of predicted impacts -- from benign to catastrophic; and an equally varied degree of human influence -- from minimal to overwhelming. That's why you were asked what you meant by the "scientific finding of AGW." Please don't tell us you didn't read or comprehend at least some of the hundreds of posts on this -- yea, nay, and lots of opinions in b'twn.

Am I mistaken that you, for example, don't accept the IPCC and/or NASA positions on AGW,

Do you know specifically what those positions are? I'm in no position to accept or reject the validity of scientific opinions. I thought I've repeatedly made that clear. All I can do is express my opinion, based on my best layman's efforts at logic & reason, that the present state of climate science is unsettled. At a minimum, that it is far less settled than you, in your opinion, think it is. Neither of our opinions make the science any more or less certain, and my opinion doesn't make me a Conservative or any less of an environmentalist.

or that there's a valid scientific "consensus" (-cringe-) around the magnitude of the problem?

Time & again it has been demonstrated that the validity and strength of the consensus is dependent on the varied scientific opinions concerning the magnitude of the problem! It is also dependent on how much of the climate's "change" is attributable to human influence vs. natural forces. Pick any scenario you like, tell us what you think the "official" IPCC or NASA position says, or cite a credible source that honestly describes a specific consensus from the scientific community. Or maybe just take John Cook & skepticalscience.com as the final word on it. Am I having deja vu, or has this consensus issue also been thrashed around hundreds of times as well? Are you beginning to understand the boredom??

Putting the shoe on the other foot, I've repeatedly asked you and others to be specific about (or to just name) the actual, (non-fantasy) IPCC/COP21 proposals for mitigating AGW that you fear would end civilization. Crickets...

What are the latest "proposals?" You seem to be asking a lot of questions about topics that have already been discussed & argued, and to the extent you've looked into it on your own, it doesn't seem like you've made it past the soundbites. Taxes, economics, population, poverty, centralization of industry & govt., negative impact on the developing world, etc., etc. . . . . Ring any bells yet? Perhaps just a buzzer or two? The only talk of civilization ending I recall is from the AGW alarmist wing. What are you talking about?

How about you start over again at Post #1, read (or re-read as the case may be) not only all the subsequent 2600+ posts but also each and every link, and then get back to us with your questions. Who knows, maybe there will still be a couple of us around who have not gone sailing yet by then.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The U.S. increase follows two years of declines, and dampens hopes that the world's largest oil guzzler was permanently reining in its appetite for crude. The nation's oil use rose by 400,000 barrels per day to a daily draw of 18.9 million barrels; China's oil consumption grew by 390,000 barrels a day, to 10.8 million barrels a day, according to the BP figures released last month.

Today's XKCD maybe helps to put US consumption into perspective

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Coral growth already being affected by acidifying oceans, new research finds | Sydney Morning Herald

I was going to let this one lie, but this was just too timely to ignore:

Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research

Amongst a host of other very good points, this one is apposite to the above article.
...
A rationale commonly used to justify high CO2/low pH treatments is the need to identify at what levels organisms are affected. However, the limits to making inferences about how an organism or ecosystem will respond to a climate-change scale variable (i.e. one that changes over decades–centuries) from their response during a short-term challenge experiment (i.e. hours–days–weeks) has not been adequately addressed—or even mentioned—in most studies. This is reflected in a confusion of terms common in OA studies—when describing the outcome of a short-term CO2 challenge, authors often make the inferential leap and use “OA” when discussing their results, without any caveats. Oddly, incorporation of the extensive toxicology literature is almost entirely missing from OA studies, either when it comes to adopting established exposure protocols or to framing the inferences that can/cannot be drawn from short-term experiments. Also missing from most studies is anything more than a superficial statement about the possibility for acclimation, adaptation, or evolution, something that is necessary to extend the outcome of a short-term challenge experiment into an inference about the effect of a long-term driver...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

Today's XKCD maybe helps to put US consumption into perspective

Neat sidestep..

[boatman61]

According to the CIA World Fact Book the total bbl/day consumed by the world in 2011 stood at 92,791,141..
So if you times that by 365 the world consumed 33,868,766,465 bbl in that year...
Figured you may consider the CIA more believable than Wiki..