Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

[waldo]

You do realise that in the 1970s, there was overwhelming "scientific consensus" the planet was cooling, right?

Turned out to be non-scientific, and based on a short-term trend in temperatures. Sound familiar?

no - there absolutely was no scientific consensus in that regard... that was hype spurred on by mainstream media. Meta studies have been done on this canard... this 70s "cooling meme"... there were very few studies/scientists that actually held that position. As you said in an earlier post to me:

You are a liar.

​

OR, you're simply mistaken and of an inclination unwilling to confirm your statement, of an inclination to propogate... porkies.

 

[darkbeaver]

Anthropocentric regulation of solar output, science assures us, is just around the corner, the models indicate.

 

[waldo]

The Chinese have used the West's political confusion at the FRAUD of AGW to its advantage. Notice the agreement imposes immediate conditions on the U.S. and none at all on China for 16 years (which means none at all, period).

no - you're wrong. As I've asked others perhaps you could advise how a country can work towards a peak level commitment... and not go over it... without having to do something internally... in this case, a radical shift in the energy infrastructure of China. Notwithstanding the fact that, again, China is forced to do something just for its own preservation given the dearth of air pollution it now faces. Exactly the situation the U.S. was in prior to it's "Clean Air Act".

 

[CDNBear]

You make up sh*t, ascribe it to me, then argue against it, you're really just talking to yourself.

He does that all the time.

OR, you're simply mistaken and of an inclination unwilling to confirm your statement, of an inclination to propogate... porkies.

No, he's absolutely correct in his assessment of you and your MO.

 

[waldo]

He does that all the time.

No, he's absolutely correct in his assessment of you and your MO.

I produced his quote... the quote where he doesn't qualify his use of models... where he most definitely implies "ALL". If I'm wrong, and he actually meant to say that "some models" are accurately predicting... then I'll certainly adjust my statement and offer an apology that I've misinterpreted his posts related to models.

as for your "does it all the time" statement, don't hesitate to back that up, hey!

for the guy barking about ocean models, just what facets of the current iteration of OGCMs is being... barked about?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

no - there absolutely was no scientific consensus in that regard... that was hype spurred on by mainstream media. Meta studies have been done on this canard... this 70s "cooling meme"... there were very few studies/scientists that actually held that position. As you said in an earlier post to me:

​

OR, you're simply mistaken and of an inclination unwilling to confirm your statement, of an inclination to propogate... porkies.

You're correct, as grain pointed out. The "cooling" of the 70s was mostly a media phenomenon, with very little scientific backup, and that faulty.

I have no problem learning new things, and admitting it on the infrequent occasion I repeat something I haven't checked.

You remain a liar. Anyone who had any question of that has checked the thread and seen that I never said "all models," as you claimed.

 

[CDNBear]

I produced his quote...

And read it the way that best suits you. You're still a liar.

as for your "does it all the time" statement, don't hesitate to back that up, hey!

It's funny that YOU should ask that.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I produced his quote... the quote where he doesn't qualify his use of models... where he most definitely implies "ALL". If I'm wrong, and he actually meant to say that "some models" are accurately predicting... then I'll certainly adjust my statement and offer an apology that I've misinterpreted his posts related to models.

as for your "does it all the time" statement, don't hesitate to back that up, hey!

for the guy barking about ocean models, just what facets of the current iteration of OGCMs is being... barked about?

You didn't say I implied all, you claimed I said "all models," and even put it in quotes. No amount of dancing will hide the fact that you are a liar.

 

[waldo]

The author's papers took no stance.

The fact is that every single significant scientific body internationally has taken a stance that humans are contributing to the warming we have seen over the last 150 years. The other little known fact is most of the so-called "sceptic scientists" including Spencer and Lindzen readily admit a human role in recent warming.

uncle Roy is a charlatan and Lindzen (now retired emeritus) has a long history of failed studies... failed as he openly admits in his responses to challenge and his do-over attempts.

 

[CDNBear]

No amount of dancing will hide the fact that you are a liar.

But he won't stop dancing, and dancing and dancing.

 

[waldo]

You didn't say I implied all, you claimed I said "all models," and even put it in quotes. No amount of dancing will hide the fact that you are a liar.

what did you mean with your statement? Are you stating that "SOME" models have correctly predicted?

But he won't stop dancing, and dancing and dancing.

you're only here to shyte on the thread and post crap... do you have anything to contribute to the subject of this thread?

CU later... dinner and game time... guys, guys... try to contribute to the thread topic. Sure you can!

 

[CDNBear]

what did you mean with your statement? Are you stating that "SOME" models have correctly predicted?

There's that dance.

I love it when my predictions come true.

you're only here to shyte on the thread and post crap...

Nope, just shyte on your crap.

do you have anything to contribute to the subject of this thread?

I'm contributing to the thread by taking a shyte on your crap.

Don't want my attention, stop being a dick.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

You sir are making bold statements that have no basis in fact.

Are you one of those religious types who despite all evidence of science believe the Earth is 6000 years old and the interpretation of some biblical passage is instead supposed to be fact?

Whether you are or not, your questions below certainly illustrate the type of thinking common with the 'AGW does not exist camp' and should be a red flag to anyone with reasonable cognitive capabilities.

1. The age of the earth is unknown.

How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth - Scientific American

2. The constituent parts of the human have been here since day one.

There have been several human species of which homo sapiens are the current only known survivors so we'll call them human for the sake of semantics. Human civilization, organised religion and agriculture all appear at the same time in the fertile crescent 10 years ago. Human beings have existed in their present form for roughly 200000 years. Hominins (related to human and part of our evolutionary path) have existed between 6-7 million years.

3. There exists innumerable histories of planetary devastation unapproachable by any present CO2 discrepancy.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but the only planet we have sufficient data about to offer strong climate theories is Earth.

4. The physical forces regulating this planets climate are so far greater magnitude than puny anthropocentric misadventures we could ever contemplate as to render them pipe dreams.

We are living in the anthropocene. 3 minutes of viewing offers many points proving you wrong.

Welcome to the Anthropocene on Vimeo

Since you won't watch (probably won't read this either) here are a few highlights:

we move more sediment than natural forces and rivers;
we manage 3/4 of all land outside the ice sheets;
we have made a hole in the ozone layer;
we are changing the ph of the ocean.

I could offer 40 more points off the top of my head such as dams, oil pumping, over fishing etc but suffice to say that your theory that man can have effect on climate through his manipulation of other variables as he is too "puny" is idiotic to any reasonable person.

5. The non anthropocentric caused problem tagged "climate change" is the norm and always will be.

Climate change has existed since the earth was formed and depending on the epoch there was a scientific reason why. Currently we are in a new epoch and we are the cause of the change in climate and the current mass extinction event taking place.

6. You cavalierly recommend maitenence of an ideal condition that has never existed and never can exist. The evaluation of history is best undertaken maximum critical thinking fully engaged especially in light of the woefully inaccurate histories thus far foisted upon the unsuspecting masse

I don't know what you're talking about here.

7. The anthropocentric superiority complex will be found wanting against the forces conducting the physical regulation of this solar system.

That's a laugh. If mankind evolves enough not to destroy either himself or his habitat he will definitely create his successor who will colonize this solar system in short order.

8 Al Gore won a Nobel prize, that alone should direct your thinking toward the bag of sponge hammers you've purchased.

In all honesty, I was once more like Eaglesmack or petros but guys like you definitely helped to change my mind.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

what did you mean with your statement? Are you stating that "SOME" models have correctly predicted?

I meant that you claimed that I used the phrase "all models." At one point you could have simply said it was an error, that you misread or misremembered my post. That would have been fine. No apology needed, just an acknowledgement that you had incorrectly stated what I had said.

Instead you have chosen to dodge, duck, dance, and engage in every logical fallacy from tu quoque to argumentum ab auctoritate.

I, by contrast, having been shown by grain that my perception of the "global cooling" story of the 70s was in error, simply admitted it. Now I'm smarter than I was this morning.

So, dance on, you pathetic little liar.

The upside is that you have definitively shown what you are. And with that, I bid you adieu.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

That's one. There are psychologists calling themselves climate scientists.

So what?

Here's a thought; why not tell me precisely what you do believe so I know where you're coming from. It seems both you and eaglesmack are eager to dismiss any evidence with soundbite style quips as if you're the official opposition without countering with anything of substance.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

This is for grainfed and anybody else who wants to provide rational answers.

Since I never got an answer to these questions before, and I still think grainfed is willing to engage in a rational discussion, here's some questions I wrote a while back:

Howdy, y'all.

I was kinda hoping the global warming folks'd answer a few questions. Now, I'm just an Oklahoma redneck, dropped out of school, but I got me a GED and even took some courses down to the college. So I heard about this global warming and looked over some of the books and papers on it, and some questions occurred to me. Hope y'all can help.

1. Modelling - last I heard, all the computer power in the world couldn't accurately model a mouse. Well, I calculate the whole world's probably a mite more complex than a mouse, so my question is can you verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your model?

2. Sampling - how good, widespread, and comprehensive is your sampling? I'm asking because, best I know, we've only had thermometers for a smidge over a hundred years, and Mr. Fahrenheit's six-foot tubes of water weren't exactly precision instruments. I mean, considering the Earth is exactly 6017 years, two months, thirty days, eleven hours, and 47 minutes old, ain't a century of observations kinda like looking at a Tuesday afternoon from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. and predicting the year's weather from just that? And how many thermometers y'all got? I hear folks talk about ocean temperatures. How many thermometers y'all got down on the seabed?

3. Compensatory factors - OK, I get it. If you dump megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, planet's gonna warm up. Any fool can see that. But what about plants? They eat carbon dioxide, and seems to me if there's more carbon dioxide, the plants'll be all well-fed and happy. And when they're well-fed and happy, they reproduce a lot (don't we all?). Which'd tend to bring down the CO2 some. Now, being an Oklahoma redneck, I'd never use words like "self-correcting systems" or "homeostatsis," but I figured you smart guys might could. Got that in your model?

4. Closed systems - I hear a lot about treating the Earth as a closed system. But the helmsman of Starship Earth just reported a fair-sized thermonuclear reactor 'bout 150,000,000 kilometers off the starboard bow. And the one thing we know even from our Tuesday-afternoon observations is its output ain't steady. Don't vary much, but with a million-mile-wide wildcatting fusion reactor, how much y'all need? I'd never use big ol' words like "insolation," but maybe y'all should think on it some.

5. History - Ice ages? Do we know how they happen? Might that have some effect?

 

[EagleSmack]

you could say the same thing about the U.S.! Oh wait, do you think the U.S. wouldn't craft something in the agreement to ensure the Chinese are complying to meet their peak 2030 commitment? Do you actually know how these formal agreements have been structured in the past... that there are checks and balances put in to measure change, to measure emission levels? Perhaps you should check out Kyoto 1 and Kyoto 2 treaties to actually see the due-diligence components... you know, something about nations wanting to check other nations and hold the to their commitments.

Say the same what about the US?

I don't think this administration would craft anything to check China and this administration will be so far out of office by 2030. In 16 years nobody is going to give a flying **** what some previous admini did. ESPECIALLY China'!

Kyoto agreements... Those were cute weren't they? Did they stop the climate from changing?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Say the same what about the US?

I don't think this administration would craft anything to check China and this administration will be so far out of office by 2030. In 16 years nobody is going to give a flying **** what some previous admini did. ESPECIALLY China'!

Kyoto agreements... Those were cute weren't they? Did they stop the climate from changing?

Apparently. The climate pretty much stopped changing. We still got ice and stuff.

Now, saying Kyoto caused that would be the correlation/causation error, but hey, who knows?

Actually, "hey, who knows" kinda describes my whole attitude toward global climate warming change (CARBON!)

The good news for us guys is that we can give our lady friends lab-created diamonds. They take carbon out of the atmosphere and cost a damn sight less than dug-up diamonds. And the ladies never need to know.

Give her fake diamonds! Do it for the planet!

 

[EagleSmack]

Normally this would be a check mate thing T.

Kyoto 1 & 2 clearly did not stop the climate from changing therefore they were failures and the people that crafted them are either con men or incompetent.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Normally this would be a check mate thing T.

Kyoto 1 & 2 clearly did not stop the climate from changing therefore they were failures and the people that crafted them are either con men or incompetent.

Well, they were politicians. You expected maybe honesty and competence?

Like I've said before, Eagle, I think we should work on more pollution control measures. Most of them are also global-warming control measures, and if the whole thing turns out to be a crock, as so many previous "scientific consensi" have, well, we still got the pollution down some.

Reasonable-like, I mean. Cost-benefit analyses and all that.