Yea, assuming all climate scientists write the same paper was a stroke of genius on your part.
New survey reconfirms overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Yea, assuming all climate scientists write the same paper was a stroke of genius on your part.
What the hell are you babbling about?
In researching MIS 12 and 13 they found correlation between GHGs fall apart and they go their own way.
Harper got a majority with 36%...........close !
If it gets cold, I'm putting on long johns and a warm coat.
gets hot, the AC goes on ........pee on Hydro.
My scientific take on the whole thing.
pretty smart, eh...............:help:
Proof is a logical abstraction. It has no meaning in natural philosophy (more recenetly known as "Science"). There is observations in nature. There's evidence. There will never be proof, one way or the other.
The other thing is that belief in AGW is highly correlated with political beliefs--yet another indication that humans are not actually particularly rational beings. We think we are, but the evidence indicates that we aren't.
As I said, let the revisionism begin.
I think most of us have always said climate does change. Just that some of us smarter folk don't buy the religion being peddled that it is all man's doing and not a natural event. As long as climate change is a religion, I will not take any of its 'conclusions' seriously.
But go ahead and post 3 more articles. Has the same effect as posting a verse of the Koran or a verse of the Bible.
Anthropogenic climate change, not simply 'climate change', has been the main focus of deniers since 2007.
Now they accept AGW, but refute the scope to the extent that they believe it is inconsequential.
Now they accept AGW, but refute the scope to the extent that they believe it is inconsequential.
I speak for myself and what I have already believed.
But you Zeolots love getting your panties in a knot. Think I will run my car an extra hour just for you tonight.
That's not what you said. You said "Most of us..."
I'm living in your head--rent free!
You truthers crack me up.... Just 'cause every single, solitary model, theory and prediction you've come up with fails miserably is no reason to do the ole deflect-the-issue-2-step
I guess that you'll be supporting the motion to kill all of those ghg emitting snow leopards and spotted owls.
It's all for Mother Gaia, after all
I don't think that's the case. BGut regardless, I doubt I would convince you anyways. You tend to tap out and sson as things get technical. Like most deniers actually.
I suppose I could counter with something like: "Actually the radiation physics model by itself, without using the more burdensome and complex general circulation mdels, have been remarkably accurate if you use a relatively large time granularity on the order of 25 years or so."
To which I'm guessing the denier response would be "Al Gore is Fat!!!"
That's even more hilarious..... Bear in mind, my truther friend, that it is inside the actual technical arguments that the truther position fails on an absolute basis.
The failed models, projections and predictions are all founded on this alleged bullet-proof technical argument, but when it comes right down to it, not one (to date) has had any relevance whatsoever.
In the meantime, enjoy the ice free North and 20 meter rise in the ocean levels
The failed models, projections and predictions are all founded on this alleged bullet-proof technical argument, but when it comes right down to it, not one (to date) has had any relevance whatsoever.
In the meantime, enjoy the ice free North and 20 meter rise in the ocean levels
No, actually the physics radiation models, (which imply a climate sensitivty of 1), have been pretty good. They predict a temperature rise of a little over a half a degree C since 1880, which isn't far from what we've had.
However, you certainly have a point about the uncertainty of the models. Which leaves us in this situation:
(a) increased anthrpogenic emissions are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
(b) This has resulted in a measurable change to global temperature (and other climate indicators)
(c) the sensitivty of our climate to those emissions isn't that well known. Maybe negative feedbacks will prevail to maintain the status quo. Maybe we'll get a stroing positive feedback loop and warming will accelerate. Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.
That's how I see the sceince.
But of course that's not the argument. The argument is what to do about it. I'dRatherBeSkiing responds by deliberately aggravtaing the situation out of spite. Not very productive, really.
My own point of view is adaptive management. We have to realize that access to cheap energy (aka oil, aka CO2 emissions) is a fundamental driver of life on this planet. If we artifically raise the price of oil, we create real suffering for those souls living on the bubble, who might not be able to afford heat anymore, or couldn't afford to till thier fields. We should pluck the low-hanging fruit (e.g. implementing carbon capture at coal-fired generators, etc), stop oil and gas subsidies and invest in renewable energies.
Those more liberal than I would like to see a concerted global effort to reduce meissions, involving international institutions like the UN and the IMF.
Those more conservatives than I would rather leave the whole thing up to market forces, and deem the country's current economic prosperity as more important than uncertain future impacts.
Regardless of the info you've have referenced, the models still continue to fail. Clearly there is tremendous fault in those ideals (or don't come close to describing the overall mechanisms)
Personally, I think it absurd and completely ridiculous that anyone can state (with a straight face) that they are aware of, have identified all of and understand the inter-relationships and dynamics between all of the variables such that they can truthfully state they have a complete understanding.
... And yes, if you want to preach climate Armageddon in a form that seeks to dictate global policy, you had better have your damned ducks in a row
Personally, I think it absurd and completely ridiculous that anyone can state (with a straight face) that they are aware of, have identified all of and understand the inter-relationships and dynamics between all of the variables such that they can truthfully state they have a complete understanding.
... And yes, if you want to preach climate Armageddon in a form that seeks to dictate global policy, you had better have your damned ducks in a row
As I said, the radiation model has done a pretty good job of predicting things to date.
yes that would be absurd, but that's not what models do. Physicists can't model to hydrogen molecules interacting. The math gets too crazy. And that's pretty much the simplest atomic level interaction that there is. Still, despite the fact that we don't have the "dynamics between all the variables" we still quite successfully use models to say, design buildings. because the model simplifies those complex quantum dynamics into macroscopic varibales "modulus of elasticity" and such.
Yep, that's how science works.
How about a job making a living on dirty energy?
Never a factor at all.
Wonder what the science on Asbestos is......hmmmm........good for you like vitamin C?
Facts say otherwise.
Yet our good government still allows the export of this crap which we don't even use here.....why?
If you need an answer you're dumb.
Dirty energy will fight hard to burn up every last piece of carbon we have to get rich.
Scientists do their work because they love......science.
They don't do it to get rich.
Show me one climatologist that is........one.
Heck, I can show many in the dirty energy sector that are.
Just one.....one climatologist that is getting rich.....making millions hand over fist.
JUST ONE.
I do believe that science has a strong understanding of those areas that have been identified and studied, however, it is foolish to think that there is anywhere close to understanding the overall system.
As it stands, the predictions have, to date, been very inaccurate and when making broad brush statements about 'what is', well put simply, it has been proven to not be the case
I get it and I do have a very healthy respect for science and the accomplishments made to date... That said, my above sentiment still applies.