Why do we battle climate change

Until then its pretty hard to eat if you have no green frog skins (what some Indians thought dollars were made out of).

 

Scientists, if they are trying to be convincing, should stick to facts about climate science. When they drift off to economic philosophy they lose lots of credibility.

 

I think you mean native Americans.
Indians come from India.

 

The, UN IPCC isn't just for scientific research but to also propose solutions. Its entirely expected that they will recommend political changes for dealing with the problem. There is just no point to researching warming without an actual solution.

 

False.

Th ideologues who cannot accept the science are an isolated ilk. Their dogma is becoming increasingly silly.

Schneider's website acknowledges that...

... the greenhouse phenomenon is well-understood and solidly grounded in basic science (see Climate Science). It is scientifically well-established that the Earth's surface air temperature has warmed significantly, by about 0.7°C since 1860, and that an upward trend can be clearly discerned by plotting historical temperatures. Such a graph would show a rapid rise in temperature at the end of the twentieth century. This is supported by the fact that all but three of the ten warmest years on record occurred during the 1990s. In addition, it is well-established that human activities have caused increases in radiative forcing, with radiative forcing defined as a change in the balance between radiation coming into and going out of the earth-atmosphere system. In the past few centuries, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30 percent, and virtually all climatologists agree that the cause is human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels and, to a considerable extent, land uses such as deforestation.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Overview.html​

 

It is really hard to see how destroying an economic system is a credible scientific solution to the professed global warming. Plus it makes the scientists seem stupid.

 

Does it really confuse you that we do not live in a single issue world?

 

It is fake science.

Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf

9°C - 14.5°C is 16.2°F - 26.1°F

12.5°C is 22.5°F

The reason temperatures were that high is because the average global temperature was 15.3°F higher than the present 58.4°F.

58.4°F + 15.3°F = 73.7°F

Seven of the last eight Inter-Glacial Periods were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present.

If you can guarantee 100% that Earth won't naturally warm another 7.8°F to 15.3°F then do it.

Intelligent people who aren't blinded by a small group of "scientists" whose sole purpose in life is to prove man-made global warming want to know why this Inter-Glacial Period is colder than all the others.

And for the record, EPICA Ice Core data for the last Inter-Glacial period shows CO2 levels never rose above 286.8 ppm CO2 (peak at 128,609 years before present).

Read and weep:

November 2018: 408.02 ppm CO2

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I just totally debunked global warming.

If global warming was true, then temperatures should be a lot higher than they are now.

That is not "significant."

The temperature has fluctuated by as much as 22°F in a matter of years in the past.

In fact, temperature changes of 15°F or more in a matter of mere years or decades has occurred 24 times in the last 100,000 years alone.

So, a change of 0.7°C over the course of 150 years is totally insignificant.

 

It isn't economic philosophy. It is understanding of empirical evidence. You're essentially asking scientists to ignore data and restrict their application of the evidence. Now that would be nonscientific!

 

Getting published is the golden gate to big money for scientists. Is the "ethical gap in research surprising when AAAS give awards to scientists who urge others to disregard the "double ethical bind" that comes with promoting Fake Science?

"Three prominent US scientists have been pushed to resign over the past 10 days after damning revelations about their methods, a sign of greater vigilance and decreasing tolerance for misconduct within the research community.

The most spectacular fall concerned Jose Baselga, chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He authored hundreds of articles on cancer research.

Investigative journalism group ProPublica and The New York Times revealed on September 8 that Baselga failed to disclose in dozens of research articles that he had received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical and medical companies. Such declarations are generally required by scientific journals."
YAHOO NEWS, Fall of top US scientists points to ethics gap in research, AFP Relax News, September 24, 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fall-top-us-scientists-points-ethics-gap-research-045350389.html

 

It is not however a consequence of capitalism but of run away government and empowered third world kleptocracies destroying the ability to produce wealth. By the way most of those goals the UN talks of are mutually exclusive.

 

Who here believes that there are no economic consequences of climate change?
Ask the insurance industry about their increased pay-outs if you are not sure.

 

All countries use government to develop. See, for example, the tiger economies. Also read Chang's 'kicking away the ladder'

 

There was a percentage of scientists who felt the splitting of an atom was “fake science”. I’m sure that was great comfort to the Japanese industrialists in Hiroshima as that plane dropped its payload ...

 

Modern environmentalists, including climate change alarmists, all stand in opposition to human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it.

Misanthropy has become a religion.

 

Not really no. The tiger economies are an exception and even there it is more an example of giving people a chance to succeed than anything the government is doing.

 

Not in the least. My message was that scientists, when explaining scientific theories and results, should explain scientific theories and results. They shouldn't garbage it up by espousing economic theory, political leanings, or how their kids are doing in school. That doesn't bother me so much, but it hurts their credibility greatly.

 

Wrong question. Here's the right question: why would they refer to facts [sic] which don't have a damn thing to do with climatology?

And I know the answer. How about you?

 

What evidence have the scientists presented that if we just destroyed capitalism their global warming would be mitigated?

 

Who is referring to the destruction of capitalism? I haven't seen the scientists do that. You need to refer to specific political economic approaches, such as bio-environmentalism and the notion that the invisible hand fails as market incentives are themselves destructive.

 

What do the insurance companies say how much more claim payout they have because of global warming? Do they even have any idea? How would they know?

 

There was a vast majority that believed plate tectonics was idiotic. A preponderance of physicists in the late 1800s believed there was nothing more to be discovered in physics. What does any of this have to do with anything?

 

The statement from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism just sailed right over your head, didn't it.
Anyone who says, point blank, that market incentives are themselves destructive simply has no clue. Marker incentives got us 90+% of the things we like.

 

Where does she say "let's destroy capitalism". Happy to apologise if you can give the quote!

 

Increased payouts on things such as storm damage, wildfires and flooding indicate an economic cost of global warming.
Of course, if you deny the scientific evidence for the link between climate change and increased storm severity, droughts and rising sea levels you won't have to accept this data.