Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Good deal you are reducing your co2 emissions .
However without pictures it didnt happen.

Newhaul's right, but a youTube would be even better.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Heck, you're on the road, I'll post the relevant part it for you.

Nice to have something more than the sales brochure from the IPCC's PR dept., Reef. Not that it's likely to overcome the gullibility we've seen recently . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

The data sets don't account for ocean heat because they are temperature data sets, not energy (heat) data sets.

Thanks for clarifying this, fryewe.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

No one is suggesting a nefarious secret purpose.

L-E seems impenetrable on this one. Any pushback is interpreted as an accusation of a conspiracy. Maybe he lives in some sort of utopian bubble? Luckily most politcal organizations are too dysfunctional to get any sort of conspiratorial act together, but I guess I shouldn't underestimate the potential.

What the UN is attempting has been clear for a very long time.

Once you get past their PR dept.

And the organization will continue to try to expand its influence as far as it can reach. You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's the next big thing for us sailors.

Exclusive: The UN starts toward new control over the world's oceans | Fox News

Soon there may be nothing else left to regulate. Then what will they have to complain about?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for clarifying this, fryewe.

Thanks from me too. It underscores that atmospheric temperature measurements alone do not provide a full picture of the energy (heat) being retained on the planet.

Any grade 6 student who's monitored the water temperature of a beaker with an ice cube in it has observed how energy(heat) is absorbed to melt the ice though the water temp itself remains constant. The oceans are a massive and dynamic thermal sink; any analysis that excludes an assessment of the energy gained(or lost) by the oceans is not sufficient by itself to validate or disprove that the earth is warming.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

No one is suggesting a nefarious secret purpose.

What the UN is attempting has been clear for a very long time.

And the organization will continue to try to expand its influence as far as it can reach. You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's the next big thing for us sailors.

Exclusive: The UN starts toward new control over the world's oceans | Fox News

Forgive me; it's a nefarious unsecret purpose?

When I attended Lil' Progressives school, and later Karl Marx High, and then graduated from The People's University (without a degree because we're all equal and grades are a tool of the oppressors) ... they didn't teach us what the UN's unsecret nefarious purpose was. This has been a serious knowledge deficit for me in this debate, I must acknowledge.

Help me bridge this gap: what is the UN's nefarious purpose? What's the IPCC's function within this plot?

(It's my understanding that the US, Canada, Australia, the EU, and just about every other free and democratic country on the planet have representation on the IPCC and are signatories. Why would they be willing accomplices to said nefarious purpose?)

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Forgive me; it's a nefarious unsecret purpose?

When I attended Lil' Progressives school, and later Karl Marx High, and then graduated from The People's University (without a degree because we're all equal and grades are a tool of the oppressors) ... they didn't teach us what the UN's unsecret nefarious purpose was. This has been a serious knowledge deficit for me in this debate, I must acknowledge.

Help me bridge this gap: what is the UN's nefarious purpose? What's the IPCC's function within this plot?

(It's my understanding that the US, Canada, Australia, the EU, and just about every other free and democratic country on the planet have representation on the IPCC and are signatories. Why would they be willing accomplices to said nefarious purpose?)

Your childish little posts are amusing only to you, L-E.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

The sound, the smoke, or the speeding fines?

The 1960's type free flowing exhaust.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks from me too. It underscores that atmospheric temperature measurements alone do not provide a full picture of the energy (heat) being retained on the planet.

Any grade 6 student who's monitored the water temperature of a beaker with an ice cube in it has observed how energy(heat) is absorbed to melt the ice though the water temp itself remains constant. The oceans are a massive and dynamic thermal sink; any analysis that excludes an assessment of the energy gained(or lost) by the oceans is not sufficient by itself to validate or disprove that the earth is warming.

Thanks for reaffirming why the surface data approach, or any hybrid regimen for that matter, is equally deficient at validating or disproving that how much the earth is may be warming. You might be starting to catch on.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...any analysis that excludes an assessment of the energy gained(or lost) by [fill in the blank] is not sufficient by itself to validate or disprove that the earth is warming.

A data set isn't an analysis.

But your comment contains the truth, and a more general truth when modified as shown, because neither analyses nor models have yet captured the system with great fidelity.

"...not sufficient to validate..." is a perfect conclusion to reach. Not sure why it's not reflected in your other posts.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The 1960's type free flowing Italian exhaust.

Understood. Would bring tears to my eyes too, and wobbly knees. But shouldn't there be a fun tax or something on such indulgences? That sorta nonconformist behavior should really be deterred somehow. The non-compliant, non-EPA/EU approved, hand-crafted, symphonic, free flowing exhaust system may be a minor imposition on others, after all, so it wouldn't be "fair" to let you enjoy it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Heck, you're on the road, I'll post the relevant part it for you.

[and from COP 21]

(my highlighting in red)

Edenhofer is giving his take on how climate change policy is intertwined with development policy, and the ramifications, and potential pitfalls of this relationship. (He seems to be arguing against a simplistic knee-jerk per-capita distribution of carbon rights; did you miss this?)

The Edenhofer stuff above is his frank and intelligent examination of how tough a policy problem this is.... sad that all you could find of interest is some short quotes to take out of context, to slag the entire IPCC with.

Another truth in there - we are fast approaching a time in our existence when there will not be enough jobs for everybody to have gainful employment. We're seeing this already; eg the US recovery from 2008 consists of more part-time, no-benefit, low-paying McJobs. One future concept being floated is the Basic Personal Income (BPI) - in a nutshell, the government pays everybody $X, then any jobs pay on top of that. The rationale is that all told, it's cheaper overall than the current patchwork of supports to the poor. Anyway, I'm sure this all thrills you immensely. Ok here's an alternative: a New "New Deal" where we take advantage of this sputtering, low-interest economy to ... take out the trash and fix up the place, and help our neighbours out a little, basically. (when I'm between contracts, I paint a room, fix the deck, etc. Same idea). I also believe that energy alternatives are the Next Big Thing, market-growth-wise. Smart capitalists have already jumped aboard. Hint hint.

As a progressive I am of course always amused how conquest, expropriation, genocide, pollution, outsourcing to lower-cost, regulation-free zones, economic enslavement via the IMF... this is "development", but if anyone suggests balancing things out a little, maybe helping other nations to develop faster and with less mess... that's "redistribution" (boo hiss).

Finally, climate policy is not climate science. Your disagreements with policy has no direct bearing on whether the science is dependable or not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Your childish little posts are amusing only to you, L-E.

Knee-jerk gummint-haterz tire me. Sh1t or get off the pot.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for reaffirming why the surface data approach, or any hybrid regimen for that matter, is equally deficient at validating or disproving that how much the earth is may be warming. You might be starting to catch on.

Originally Posted by fryewe

A data set isn't an analysis.

But your comment contains the truth, and a more general truth when modified as shown, because neither analyses nor models have yet captured the system with great fidelity.

"...not sufficient to validate..." is a perfect conclusion to reach. Not sure why it's not reflected in your other posts.

Guys, I would be totally on your bench if you could prove that climate scientists have not already factored all of this in. I don't think that you've achieved some insight that they have not. Your fave skeptic sites root around for anything that's a plausible counter, then they buff it up and put it out there (no peer review, no examination), and it becomes your insight du jour, and lives on in your mythology despite numerous proofs of irrelevance (eg Climategate).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(my highlighting in red)

Edenhofer is giving his take on how climate change policy is intertwined with development policy, and the ramifications, and potential pitfalls of this relationship. (He seems to be arguing against a simplistic knee-jerk per-capita distribution of carbon rights; did you miss this?)

The Edenhofer stuff above is his frank and intelligent examination of how tough a policy problem this is.... sad that all you could find of interest is some short quotes to take out of context, to slag the entire IPCC with.

You can choose to take it that way, or choose to use it to gain a better understanding of what the IPCC really is and how it operates. In other words, to better understand the way things actually are as opposed to the sugar-coated way it makes you feel good to understand them. You don't need a "conspiracy" to recognize that the IPCC is not simply a dispassionate adjudicator of all the science, but a political body with political goals.

Another truth in there - we are fast approaching a time in our existence when there will not be enough jobs for everybody to have gainful employment. We're seeing this already; eg the US recovery from 2008 consists of more part-time, no-benefit, low-paying McJobs. One future concept being floated is the Basic Personal Income (BPI) - in a nutshell, the government pays everybody $X, then any jobs pay on top of that. The rationale is that all told, it's cheaper overall than the current patchwork of supports to the poor. Anyway, I'm sure this all thrills you immensely. Ok here's an alternative: a New "New Deal" where we take advantage of this sputtering, low-interest economy to ... take out the trash and fix up the place, and help our neighbours out a little, basically. (when I'm between contracts, I paint a room, fix the deck, etc. Same idea). I also believe that energy alternatives are the Next Big Thing, market-growth-wise. Smart capitalists have already jumped aboard. Hint hint.

The "dumb" theme again, as applied so many times before to those that offer push-back on conformist views. I know this will disappoint, but I actually think we may be on the brink of a new era of economic prosperity, at least here in the US, but it will depend on more people in govt. with economics degrees, and less of those saturated with simplistic, ideological-based notions of how the world works. But without an economic crisis, a "climate crisis," or perhaps an "inequality crisis," how can we possibly get your wealth redistribution agenda through?

As a progressive I am of course always amused how conquest, expropriation, genocide, pollution, outsourcing to lower-cost, regulation-free zones, economic enslavement via the IMF... this is "development", but if anyone suggests balancing things out a little, maybe helping other nations to develop faster and with less mess... that's "redistribution" (boo hiss).

Ah yes, and now we have the guilt theme. The talking points are ever so predictable. I bet that progressive label you've proclaimed for yourself feels good, even as it just gets typed out of your computer. But are you really progressive, or merely a Progressive? There's a big difference, doncha know.

Finally, climate policy is not climate science. Your disagreements with policy has no direct bearing on whether the science is dependable or not.

So why do you keep mentioning your "redistribution" themes, and "New New Deal" economics as part of "climate policy?" More to the point, why is the IPCC so involved in doing this? Climate policy needs to follow from climate science, not the other way around. But of course the opposite has become the norm, which is why it's so important for the messaging to continue to be that the science is now "settled," the debate is "over," and any questioning of the science must be ignored, suppressed or marginalized, regardless of evidence.