Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

For years I used to look up things like that. In real Science websites (not on science denialist pages, like you did). But then I realized it's ridiculous. Just like I don't have to figure out Bernoulli's law every time I get on an airplane. Because I know something much better: I know how science works. Knowing how science works means I don't have to obtain a degree in medicine to get a medical procedure done, I don't need a degree in pharmaceutics to take a medication, and I don't need to know quantum physics every time I turn on my computer...

Pretending to be a climatologist by repeating talking points you find on a webpage is childish.

And you even refuse to say what your point is. If you already stated that Global Warming is real, why would scientists need to manipulate data? And if they did manipulate the data, how do you know Global Warming is real?

 

Many folks have advocated from the mild, as you point out, to the wild, to include forced sterilization, forced abortion, etc

 

So... after all of the blah blah blahh,, you get to the real question. Why indeed? The answer, as noted above, and elsewhere is that without catastrophic threat, policy isn't made. Priorities don't get changed. And for those who feel that there is a pool of money waiting to be exploited, nothing else is sufficient to garner the type of funding efforts they wish to pursue their pet hypothesis. It's simply a study in social dynamics. We can, and do observe the behavior. It is, and has been the reason for the dire predictions. The other side of this is that there stands to be an enormous wealth transfer process, al la carbon markets, that will force wealth away from the developed world into the developing world. Read the outputs of the IPCC policy. It's right there in plain English to read. Read it.

We know that the climate changes. It has. It does, and it will in the future. Warming must have happened, as there currently are not mile thick glaciers covering (as the evidence suggests that not too long ago there were) NYC. And now there aren't. So, had to have warmed in order to both abate and then melt those glaciers.... huh? And obviously, industrialization wasn't around to accomplish that then, was it?

 

You don't know the first thing about science.

 

Well, sure. There's going to be nutjobs that insert themselves into every debate. But, I don't think any rational person or institution is seriously advocating the more wild methods of population control. This, of course, is excluding those methods of population control that are/were in effect for other reason like those in China.

 

I think you missed the point. The point was if you acknowledge that global warming is real then there's no motivation to fake any data. And on the flip side if you think all of the data is fake then there's no way to know either way if global warming is real.

You're thinking too binary here. Climate change is not just natural nor is it just anthroprogenic. It's both. And, in fact, it's a spectrum of possibilities of relative contributions. Just because the anthroprogenic component was close to zero in the past doesn't mean it is still close to zero today.

And it's the same with the effects. The debate does not have a binary conclusion. That is, the no effect argument from deniers isn't correct nor is the civilization ending arguments from alarmist. The truth, like most things in life, lies somewhere in the middle. No, global warming does not necessarily mean there will be a doomsday event. But, yes, there will be a cost associated with our behaviors. We (humans) are going to pay for our actions one way or another. It's either going to be reactive or proactive. Most of the world is on board with a more proactive response. The United States prefers a more reactive response.

 

You don't think there is a reason to be concerned when in the past, global warming either took 10,000 years to develop or it took an asteroid strike, but now we have it happening over a couple of decades with no natural cause existing? You can't logically equate past instances of global warming with the current one.

 

Cal Fire To Trump: We Have Plenty Of Water. The Problem Is Climate Change.

California fire officials swung back at President Donald Trump after he tweeted over the weekend that the state’s devastating wildfires have been exacerbated by a water shortage resulting from “bad environmental laws.”

Scott McLean, deputy chief of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, told HuffPost on Monday that his state has “plenty of water to fight these wildfires.” He noted the lakes near the Carr and Mendocino Complex fires.

What’s driving these raging infernos, McLean said, is a crisis that Trump has in the past dismissed as “bullshit” and a Chinese hoax.

“It is our changing climate that is leading to more severe and destructive fires,” McLean said.

 

Huh? What do you mean "finally". I have asked that about 3 times already. No matter.. so long as you answer the question, it's all good.

What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about policy? I'm talking about the consensus position known as AGW. You do know what that is, right? Scientists don't make policy.

And you haven't answered my question. Hopefully a bit later...

Ok. So the answer to my question is that you don't know what AGW is. How could I explain it to you in a short sentence? AGW is the fact that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing at an abnormal rate, that this increase is caused by human activity, and that it is likely to cause changes in the climate. Period! There is the highest confidence that Science can provide that the consequences will be, in general, negative for the human population. But what exactly those consequences are is a matter of debate. How to confront those consequences is a matter of debate. Policies are a matter of debate.

There wasn't. Which means that industrialization didn't cause it then. But it sure as hell is causing it now. So... what's your point?

You're talking gibberish. And you still haven't answered the question. Looks like this is because: you didn't know what AGW meant.

 

Thanks for making my point again.

 

I would point out that the "nut jobs" that you are referring to are an integral part of the IPCC recommendation set. The massive wealth transfers, the massive population control measures, the instantiation of planned resource scarcity. It's all there to read, if you have the stomach.

 

Well, if, as you suggest, it took millennia to change, perhaps you'd be right. Id suggest that we have several examples where climate changed rapidly, suddenly in some instances, all through nature, or accident. The fact that you ascribe real credibility to your slow change theory is simply ignorant of the actual historic record.

 

It appears you didn't digest my post.

 

Can you point me to the IPCC document that recommends forced sterilization and forced abortion as a means for AGW mitigation?

 

I read it! Ugh.... And it's stomach-turning. They are proposing.. Ufff... It's so terrible, I can't even articulate it.... When I read it I puked all over my keyboard. They actually want to...Egad!... provide birth control for women who want it but don't have access to it .. bluaaah! There goes another keyboard! Gluaaah!... Ptu ptu kha!

And then they'll say that we are the alarmists!

 

And I would point out that the rapid changes you are using as examples involved cooling of the climate for clearly defined reasons (volcanism) while this is heating with no alternate explanation.

 

And yet, somehow, several warming events have happened quite suddenly, as recently as the medieval warming period that took less than a hundred years to develop. It happened previously during the BC/AD era, about 5K years ago effecting all of N Africa, etc. These events happen. We have evidence of it, and a similar relatively rapid increase if overall temps during these events that very similarly map to what we are seeing today. To suggest that what we see today is unique is, well, uninformed.

 

I suppose you have great experience as far as the uninformed concept, though purposeful ignorance is a more likely explanation. The medieval warm period was not global, but I guess that is unimportant.
https://skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html

 

Why not try some actual research on this subject instead of the BS at Skeptical Science.

 

Very well:
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/science/foci/focus-2/themes/2k-network

 

I would suggest that if you're going to launch a personal attack perhaps you should at least use a credible source not "skeptical science blogs". Just sayin.... Perhaps a mirror would be useful for you.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02...ieval-warming-period-was-global-not-regional/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017PA003237

http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309

Etc.....

 

Interesting....you accuse me of submitting a Blog them submit blogs and conspiracy sites. I did not attack but instead pointed out likely reasons for your lack of critical knowledge by expressing opinion.

Your ice crystals are melting.

 

It's been awhile since I saw them, but I believe they were in Al Gore's first book on the topic, "An Inconvenient Truth."

 

Fun stuff..... I like melting ice. I like spring. Spring allows the cycle of life to continue.

 

Skeptical Science blog solicits feedback from experts in the field and always sources their articles (usually prolifically) with actual peer reviewed literature. You'll also find that the charts and graphs they post are either taken verbatim from sources or the data in them can be matched exactly to the data from the sources. I'm not saying Skeptical Science is infallible, but they operate in stark contrast with denier blogs like NoTricksZone, RealClimateScience, etc. which do not solicit feedback from experts, graphs and charts are rarely taken verbatim from the sources (if sources are cited at all), they often photoshop graphs and charts, and frequently bend and twist the academic research if they aren't already just making stuff up or getting it from other bloggers of questionable credibility.