Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

So burn as much fossil fuel as the current economic model allows regardless of the consequences? In other words, let's maximize short term economic gain at the expense of long term economic gain?

What was she referring to?

 

No answers for my questions above ?? Instead alarmist gibberish. Germans and Danes pay 3X what we do for electricity and for no effect on global average temperature. On board with that ?? What does that do to the standard of living of the lower income quintiles ?? OBW the Germans are replacing their nuclear plants with coal (actually lignite) plants.

 

Climate deniers only believe what their Leaders tell them................. No such thing as science..........

Trrump cut back on the influence of scientist in his Administration...................

In fact Trumps Administration is against any advisers of any kind.................. Trump hires only the best .......... They know everything

 

Maximize adaptability to any local global warming issues. Global warming is globally net beneficial.

 

Too funny. Alarmism coupled with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

Are you claiming it has never happened? And weight and gravity is usually the cause. And when did we start recording accurate and calibrated records on a global scale. Funny how when lower temps are reported you guys claim that is just weather and doesn't count as climate.

What exactly is the proper temperature for the planet?

 

This is probably where you and I differ the most and that's okay. I agree that global warming can be net beneficial, but only up to a certain amount. I think that amount has ran it's course and any further amount will likely be net harmful.

 

That depends on what you're trying to optimize. In the general case the proper temperature is likely one where the T isn't changing. This would provide the best environment for life to optimize itself to the climate without having to try and hit a moving target.

 

This effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels has been going on for decades. During all this time, with all the money that has been thrown at it, CO2 emissions have continued to rise not drop. There is no way we can significantly cut fossil fuel use globally. Even if the first world were to somehow cut its fossil fuel use in half it wouldn't have any effect on the climate 100 or 200 years from now. The huge cost of doing such a thing would be a waste.

CO2 levels are not something anybody should be wetting the bed over. You said yourself in a previous post that 600 ppm wouldn't be a problem. I agree, and 600ppm is a hell of a long way off.

 

I don't think it's waste of money. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that are going to run out regardless of their effect on the climate. The transition to a different economic model that is not so dependent on them is going to go more smoothly if we start developing these alternative energy sources now rather than later.

Just to be clear...600 ppm will be a problem in that it will force humans to adapt to a warmer planet and that will cost money and suppress GDP. I just don't think it's a catastrophe like what alarmists make it out to be.

Now, if we go past 600 ppm towards 1000 ppm then that might be where we start to have real problems. It might very well activate tipping points that set us on path for a hothouse Earth. Or maybe it won't. But, it's probably in our best interest if we don't let that experiment play out.

 

[QUOTE="iamanonman, post: 1069482984, member: 73112"]I don't think it's waste of money. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that are going to run out regardless of their effect on the climate. The transition to a different economic model that is not so dependent on them is going to go more smoothly if we start developing these alternative energy sources now rather than later.



Just to be clear...600 ppm will be a problem in that it will force humans to adapt to a warmer planet and that will cost money and suppress GDP. I just don't think it's a catastrophe like what alarmists make it out to be.

Now, if we go past 600 ppm towards 1000 ppm then that might be where we start to have real problems. It might very well activate tipping points that set us on path for a hothouse Earth. Or maybe it won't. But, it's probably in our best interest if we don't let that experiment play out.[/QUOTE]
If it is not going to have any effect on climate how is it not a waste of money? Sure, fossil fuels are finite, but there is a hell of a lot left, and it is by far the best energy source available.

Adapting to a warmer climate will cost money, but trying to cut back on fossil fuels will cost more and won't work.

 

Recently an Australian was howling that Texas has suffered the consistently highest recorded summer time temperatures ever; only us Texans are unaware of that since to us residents it looks and feels like a TYPICAL Texas scorcher of a summer, and no more and no less than usual.

 

What do you base that conclusion on?

 

Oh, nonsense. People become more sensitive to heat as they get older, because the body's temperature regulation system becomes less effective. Heat that would not trouble a 60-year-old can easily kill a 90-year-old. Guess what? THE NUMBER OF VERY OLD PEOPLE HAS BEEN SKYROCKETING. HELLO??

 

Nope.

As they had been almost every decade since record keeping began. That is just the nature of records and statistical variation.

I won't comment on that as I don't know where you live. Suffice it to say that that is one place, other places are not seeing any such increase, or are even showing decreases. It's called inherent variability.

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Because there were never any very old people there before.

I am quite well informed, thanks. But not by paying any attention to the MSM.

I don't have to look it up, I can remember what the weather was like here 50 years ago. It hasn't changed. In fact, where I live, the last two winters have been the coldest ever recorded, and this summer has been below average.

Right back atcha, champ.

 

Gee, thanks for the substantive arguments...

?? It was similar to the 20th century warming, though apparently the sun was even more active during the second half of the 20th century.

?? Huh? Obviously they don't know why they are being paid to lie. They are just taking the money and telling the required lies.

Science denialism is when purveyors of CO2 alarmist nonscience deny -- without credible empirical evidence -- that the cyclical factors that caused several similar previous Holocene warming episodes could also have caused the most recent one.

 

Yes, and the highest temperatures during summer months has been rising even faster. Where I live now, the temperatures in summer seldom reached 100*. Now they hit 103-110* daily, and it's very unpleasant. Record highs have been recorded in a variety of cities around the globe. It's nothing to laugh at.

 

This is a weeks old debate. You expect me to go back weeks to demonstrate that to you? Are your arguments worth doing that? I'll judge by this post.

No it wasn't! The technology that existed in the 20th century didn't exist! Therefore, it was not similar.

The question I asked was "And what interest would scientists have in starving oil exporting countries?" We have scientists who have won Nobel Prizes... They are paid millions to speak all over the world for conferences, teaching, research... And, in your mind, they take money to lie, fabricate studies (which takes a lot of work).... in order to starve oil exporting countries. I ask again: why would anybody in their sane mind do that? Not to mention ALL respectable Scientists in the world.

Ok... Don't bother to respond to that.... Obviously the discussion was not worth the effort. Thanks for trying....

 

I agree with your "inherent variability." Perhaps where you live is one of those areas less affected by the global changes--unlike mine. However, that doesn't change the bottom line that global temperatures are rising. It's been global records that have been busted repeatedly over the past decade especially, and intermittently over the past decades. The thing is, scientists say it's speeding up. Even this week I saw on the news that the entire NW U.S. is experiencing a record heat wave. Right now it's a temporary distraction, but when it starts climbing to over 125* F, it becomes something far more serious. And that day is coming.

 

That’s why it’s immoral to kill coal which provides inexpensive electrical power available 24/7/365 to run air conditioners. And why it’s immoral to restrict economic growth and consequently the rate of increase in the standard of living resulting in the ability to adapt to higher temperatures.

 

The answer is money and fame. Perfect example - Michael Mann.

 

Not the greatest film director, but... not so bad that he deserves being attacked like that....

 

Mann has made a very good living producing bogus “science”.

 

I don't like Mann either. I really don't like his style or bravado. But, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts his work and finds no egregious errors with it. On the flip side, the scientific community does find egregious errors with the critiques. Did he underestimate the magnitude of the MWP and LIA? Maybe. But, that doesn't mean his work is bogus especially considering that many similar reconstructions of the northern hemisphere support his original 1998 work.

 

Haven't watched that one. I'll wait until it's on Netflix.