Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Once again and example of the way you spread misinformation. You cherry pick information, you misquote and quote out of context.

"I agree that few if any of us has the resources/time/energy to track down and read EVERYTHING about every study ever done. (even though there are those who would like us to believe they have)"

You used this quote of mine to say that as an admission that I admitted to knowing nothing about global warming science. I believe it is clear to anyone with the reading ability of someone in Grade 3 that I was merely stating that few if any of us know everything (even though some think they have)

So once again you, as I have said too many times, either you can't read or you don't. If it is the former, I suggest you learn, if it is the latter, perhaps you would make a more convincing argument if you did.

But what do I know, I'm just an alarmist!

 

Hi!

Let me start off by saying that I am *huge* supporter of global warming. I think the science isn't settled, but I think it's pretty obvious that we are experiencing warming, and that it may have devastating effects on our environment.

I followed the links, and I think the poster was saying that you made this statement:

"The difference however is that global warming isn't (and shouldn't be) a belief! It is based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof!"

And were unable to defend it. I guess that is the misinformation ?? I mean, if you made the claim, and it is not true, isn't it misinformation?

 

May I humbly suggest that you read a few more posts in these threads to get a better feel for the tone.

As for the quote in question, I believe that what I meant, if I didn't state it clearly was that the vast majority of global warming conclusion s have been derived from peer reviewed reproducible studies. I did not suggest that, and in fact caveated against suggesting that the climate models that predict the future is either perfect or settled. What I did suggest was that while the models may differ, the science and the studies leading to the modeling was "good" science.

I don't believe that is misinformation.

PS I don't think you mean to suggest that you were a big "supporter" of global warming. I think you mean that you support the conclusions that global warming is happening and it is in some measure man caused.

 

I'll pick one or two assertions you make that are misinformed.

" It (AGW) is based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof!"

This statement is absolutely false. If this were true, not one reputable scientist would disagree with your assertion. There are thousands who disagree. You would really only need ONE reproducible experiment to prove the hypothesis, not a 'majority'.
That ONE experiment does not exist. Prodice it here and I will shut up and never darken another so-called environmental thread at PC again.

So, you are called out.

Another matter where you appear to be misinformed and yet wish to convince others:

"But if we agree that even the smallest amount of predicted warming has consequences of a dire proportion, shouldn't we do AT LEAST as much to off set that prediction?"

Well, we do definitely NOT agree. Again there is no credible evidence (and certainly no conclusive proof!) that a small amount of warming will result in any dire consequences. The argument that IF something might occur, we must do something drastic about that possible predicted occurance (especially when the prediction is based on pure conjecture), is illogical and misinformed.

 

I have been admonished that we should not introduce politics here, so I won't.

Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

The above is part of the non-political agenda at the environmental conclave in Copenhagen.

 

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I have been watching this mess unfold for quite a while here and finally had to register to comment.

He said precisely:

And I have watched him be called out by the other guy, and he has danced around it, changed his story, and has not been able to provide evidence. I think humans are contributing to global warming, but I know that it is not 100% for sure. I know that it is not based on "reproducible scientific experiments."

I was just curious if Icarus is ever going to answer the question?

 

Some people have full-time employment moving goal posts.

 

I'm not sure what I am being called out for, but if the question is do the vast majority of scientists think that global warming is man caused?

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

A key quote is that "97% of climate scientists believe humans play a role."

Another is "Petroleum geologists are the biggest doubters" Hmmm?

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real | Eureka! Science News

Climate Scientist Consensus - Global Warming Is Real (Other Scientists, Not So Much)

I could link hundreds if not thousands of such reports.

Now if you are calling me out because I said, (and if you read the original post) that climate scientists do experiments that are peer reviewed, and the results of which are beyond doubt by any reasonable measure, I stand by that statement. I am not 100% sure that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow morning, but 20,000+ sunrises put the probability near 100%.

I have also stated that while the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening, that humans are in part responsible for it, and that there will be consequences. Where there is disagreement (and I have no idea who is right) is the amount of average temperature gain when/where and what the consequences are going to be.

I also stand by the statement that if we as a society accept the first premise, (that which 97% of climate scientists agree, that climate change is human caused and will have consequences) then the only prudent (sane?) course of action would be to assume that at the very least we should plan for and take action based AT LEAST on the minimum projections.

You can call me out for anything you all wish, and indeed I do make mistakes, but what I am steadfastly sure of is that global warming (or lack thereof is not a function of belief. It is a function of the vast preponderance of evidence which for the sake of this argument proves it. Like I said, I am not 100% sure that the sun comes up in the east each and every morning but I think we can all agree with a reasonable certainty that this is true.

97% of Climate scientists (plus me!) have the same level of certainty about global warming, and I for one am not willing to risk the future of my children's children's children over some semantic argument about he said/she said. I am also not willing to risk their future for the sake of some small pieces of silver I may keep, just to keep the status quo.

I believe it was Nero who fiddled. I just hope your children enjoy the music, as they may have little else.

But, What do I know, I'm just an alarmist!

 

But this is a meaningless question. There is a mechanism that links CO2 to increased temperatures and it is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its chemical properties. Just like salt is salty and water is wet.

All you have to show is that CO2 is increasing (demonstrable fact) and that there is also an increase in temperature (also a fact, except for denialists), and its consequences (also observed) to be certain increased CO2 (and yes other emissions) is a concern.

Reasonable people at this point would not argue if its happening, because it must, it would be a matter of to what degree. Even if you argue there are natural causes behind the warming (which there aren't) curbing emissions is a good idea because they would exacerbate any natural process.

 

You're kidding right? We've all done that. Specifically, your claim that there is no warming recently, is complete fiction. I've shown that clearly. You countered with some fluff criticism about the author of the news article. The content of the news didn't come from him now did it?

Why they hell do we bother? It's like arguing with a machine that can't think and just spews out nonsense.

 

The deniers have a problem with collective action, regulation, redistribution of wealth and change.

That's why they deny AGW. The solution to AGW involves all of the above. Yet they pretend that their objections are science based.

That's just crazy. And anyway it doesn't matter. They are already losing, will ultimately lose and the decarbonization of the world economy is inevitable.

Deniers: sorry but your ranting on this small slice of cyberspace can't change any of that. Nothing you do can.

Mwuhahahahahahahahahahahah!

 

Here's something interesting:

washingtonpost.com

Prudent people take note.

 

Yes, for example, soot emissions are also a significant contributor to global warming. Some of the largest sources of soot are fossil fuels (dung powered stoves are another) so CO2 regulation will help combat soot emissions as well.

 

A question or two, if you would be so kind.

"and its consequences (also observed)"
To what observed consequences are you referring?

"Even if you argue there are natural causes behind the warming (which there aren't)"
Are you seriously saying that there are no natural causes to be considered? It appears that you are.

 

So much wrong here, it stuns.

One need not have any view on AGW to have learned from history that 'collective action, regulation, and redistribution of wealth' are in themselves problematic. Any person who cares the slightest bit about humanity should be concerned when confronted with these pernicious political ideas.

We can refer back to the rousing successes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to see how effectively these concepts can enslave and murder millions of human beings. We have a living example in North Korea - that bastion of collective action and redistribution. But you have taken us off topic.

Those who question AGW for scientific reasons, do so because presently science cannot demonstrate empirically that even a doubling or tripling of CO2 will result in runaway warming or tipping points or catastrophe.

The projections of climate models into the future are the entirety of the case against CO2. I repeat for umpteenth time - THERE IS NO EMIRICAL EVIDENCE. NONE. that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It matters not that the EPA or the Supreme Court declare it to be.

The AGW case is built on illogic. It fails on lack of scientific evidence.

That it is a theory constructed precisely to meet a political objective is a separate matter.

What is crazy is your idea that the world economies can be 'decarbonized'. Economies will continue to utilize the most efficient and cost-effective fuel available until it runs out or is replaced by something that works more efficiently or cheaply. What your precious collective can accpmplish (if we should be so unfortunate as to fall under its purvey) is to tax and control people while the burning of fossil fuels increases - as it surely will.

 

To repeat: You are called out precisely because you make a statement that is false and cannot back it up.

" It (AGW) is based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof!"

This statement is absolutely false. If this were true, not one reputable scientist would disagree with your assertion. There are thousands who disagree. You would really only need ONE reproducible experiment to prove the hypothesis, not a 'majority'.
That ONE experiment does not exist. Prodice it here and I will shut up and never darken another so-called environmental thread at PC again.

So, you are called out. AGAIN.

Produce a scientific paper which conclusively prooves (your assertion) via a reproducible scientific experiment that man's emission of CO2 causes 'global warming' or 'climate change' to any extent that we should be worried about it - other than that it apparently causes delusion.

It should be very simple since there are vast numbers of such experiments - according to you.

 

IF the theory of AGW was true, collective action?, regulation, redistribution of wealth and change? how would any of those solve too much carbon in the atmosphere? The only solution would be either a 100% rollback of industrialization, mass population control, or technological breakthrough which the greens don't seem interested in.
Copenhagen talks are gathering of people who want to steal hard-earned wealth and give it those who can't figure out how to create it on their own and/or to create one socialist world government. The people in copenhagen who are not socialists are interested in huge carbon schemes to line their own wallets(ie Al Gore). Did anyone see the reception Hugo Chavez received yesterday? Too bad Stalin isn't still around the crowd in copenhagen would be people fainting in the aisles and in tears of joy if he gave a speech. Copenhagen is a farce.

 

The fact is the vast majority of scientists have no idea if global warming is man-caused and just had faith in the science being done at Hadley and other places and in the political process at the UN. We are now finding out how corrupt both were.

The fact is that any kind of 'feel-good' agreement in copenhagen will be dead on arrival in the US congress. AGW political movement is dead. The politicians and scientists need to move on and try to repair the damage that has already been done to the UN and science in general.

 

That study of the previous sea level rise, proves that glacial melting,rising sea level and global warming is a natural occurrence.
Humans had nothing to do with raising carbon levels 125,000 years ago.
(carbon may not even be the cause of interglacial warming,it may be the result of warming)

 

20 to 30 ft rise in sea levels? Why don't they just say "the whole world will drown if the west does not surrender its wealth in Copenhagen and worse yet I may not have some huge fat grant to take care of me for the next 5 years."

My guess is Obama is looking for any excuse to skip a trip to Copenhagen, I predict he will find an excuse.