Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

oh I know exactly what he means. My point is that were Mann's lie the truth the notion that it exceeded any change ever produced by nature is laughably absurd.

 

The Hockey Stick is only discredited in the right wing fever swamp. Same for Mann. He has in fact been vindicated.

But congratulations.

You're destroying the OP

 

Is it fatalistic? Probably not. Perhaps it's just being realistic. The question is simply what we understand. I would suggest that we are in the infancy of our ability to understand the natural dynamics let alone being able to quantify the potential impact of human activity. Sure, we can speculate. Sure, we can "imagine" our self created destruction. And yet, all of that effort still doesn't in any way reflect a rational demonstrable repeatable equation that we have tested to demonstrate an effective counter to.

Today, it's merely a leap of faith. In my mind, the current AGW dogma isn't remarkably different that the musings of the apocalypse found in other faith based organizations.

 

I'd say, given the current court problems for mr Mann that it isn't just "right wing fever swamps".... Also, unless mr Mann can get anyone else to duplicate his results, why would anyone lend any credence to his conclusions in the first place?

 

As they say in court, facts not in evidence. If you could, you should provide a citation that describes the extent to which anthropogenic influence drives additional warming. We'll wait. Until then, your casual substitution of AGW and climate change, being that they are not the same thing. So, quick, go find the % of additional warming produced by the <4% of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by man. We'll wait.

 

"Earth isn’t the only planet grappling with climate change, although this other orb doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel emissions or a 97 percent of scientific “consensus” on global warming.

Newly published evidence suggests Mars is experiencing global warming as it emerges from an ice age."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/

 

Let's leave off the man made part for a minute. If a large asteroid is heading for earth with projections that it will land smack dab on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and create a new ice age likely resulting in the extinction of all mammals including man. It's natural, not man made so do we not try to preserve the human race by trying to deflect it?
We know climate change is happening. We know CO2 is a huge contributor to that. Why would we deflect the comet but not try and reduce CO2 emissions?

 

Fun stuff here. Now we're getting into pure relativism. We certainly try to take care, we do it every day. We develop immunizations, we educate folks, etc. There are many many ways that today we attempt to effect the human populations to improve them and our quality of life. Likely, attempting to deflect an asteroid on a collision course would also be something that we would expend time and effort towards.

Gradual climate change, however, seems more problematic though. First, we don't really know the triggers, and frankly, we don't know what "normal" is supposed to actually be. Clearly, the current marketing is that we've somehow warmed to the extent that it is now dangerous. And yet, that's nothing more than a speculative lie. We know that in semi modern times that we have been warmer overall than we are today. We know that this wasn't historically that long ago, during the Roman Empire, and subsequent medieval periods. We know these things. And yet, suddenly, warming up after a significant foray back towards an ice age, we find the prospect of additional warming up, even naturally occurring, to be what? Scary? Why? If we haven't, yet even remotely approached the temperatures that we've experienced in the past, and obviously, human kind didn't die out, why worry about the possibility that we might approach a warmer climate?

Given your asteroid example, it demonstrates clear and present danger. Like ebola. We understand the likelihood of our destruction contained by not doing something. And yet, in climate change? We don't.

 

Luggs, in terms of climate, gradual is measured in millennium not decades. Evolution does not occur over a generation but many generations. We can't use "normal" as the standard here.

 

Again, I wouldn't disagree with that had it not been so demonstrably apparent that the hysteria wasn't vastly over hyped by the proponents. I would also point out that the changes being glacially slow isn't a realistic expectation, in any way. History shows us the volatility that can be induced. And yet, even with that volatility, here we are.

 

Thank you for proving my point that all you have are noncredible pseudo sciences sources.

Have a nice day!

 

Just out of curiosity, who is saying that we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions? The United States is reducing such emissions and will continue to reduce such emissions. And that's a good thing. No, I'm pretty sure what people object to is the notion promoted by some that we need to spend ungodly amounts of money and ruin our economy based on your feeling that a fairly small amount of human produced CO2 is wreaking havoc on our planet, a feeling which cannot be adequately supported by the current science. Hey, you want to effect positive change? How about working to stop cutting down so many of the trees in our rain forests, as they're the ones that do the work of converting CO2 into the sugars that are responsible for life on this planet. Your approach to the problem and your proposed solution are myopic and misplaced.

 

Good point!

Sentient cockroaches?

 

If you believe that 7+ billion people terraforming the planet 24*7 are having no impact on the planet whatsoever then you can't have seen the images of earth from space.

 

Your abject failure to address my position means that it continues to stand unchallenged.

 

Huh. You think this guy hasn't seen the images of earth from space?

 

Nah, it's laughable. Truly. Some might even be embarrassed to have even thought it would be a good idea to publish it in the first place. But hey, whatever gets you through...

 

You have been proven wrong. You were given over 100 links that prove you wrong with scientists, mathematicians, and physicist (more scientists) proving you wrong.... and this is your post. That is the 2nd time in this thread alone on two different topics where you asked for a source, were provided them debunking your lies, and you off-handedly dismissed it and ran away. You are not a serious participant here. You spam these boards with nonsense and lies.

 

The question was whether you have seen them.

Since you deny the evidence of your own eyes there is nothing further to discuss!

 

Thanks for proving the OP's point to be wrong and that it is the denialists who being petulant.

 

You were asked for credible sources and failed to produce any.

That is not my problem.

Have a nice day!

 

LOL... Nah, it has nothing to do with the original post, it's about your inability to present a cogent argument. Its' still laughable. Deflecting on your part after having doubled down on your ownership now seems incredibly disingenuous.

 

Do you ALWAYS talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time?

You acknowledge that it is happening and that we are a major contributor and that we can mitigate it...but you want the response to be slow and ineffective.and in the end...more costly

Wonderful.

You've shown exactly why the OP is wrong.

 

Forbes, Universities, Science and Education, Herald Sun, The Tampa Tribune, WSJ, Popular Technology, etc... etc.... are not "credible sources".

You're just trolling. We get it.