Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

So I think where we part ways here as I so often the case when I talk to AGW proponents is a time frame. You and they say 10000 years like it's a huge number and anything outside that time frame is irrelevant. You have to take a step back and look at the big picture here. 10000 years to the earth is like snapping your fingers in your life. There's a tree that almost lives that long. Does everything that happened before you snapped your fingers become irrelevant? As humans we tend to measure the Earth's age based around humanity and our time on this planet while in reality we just got here. Earth has been doing it's thing a million times longer than our brief time here and will continue to do so long after we have gone the way of the dinosaur.

 

Evidently, the goldilocks according to him is today. As in, no additional change can happen. Why? No explanation. Why is it good? No explanation. Just is. We've been round and round on this for years. No explanation, ever. Just is.

 

Entirely agree here. The magic is that folks who like to diddle about using their professional lives in pursuit of how the climate works have become addicted to the money they need to diddle. Also, folks who give them money expect actionable results for their investments, and of course, they have a political agenda that they feel this kind of research supports. When asked, the average AGW acolyte will stammer about refuting that they are beholden to their benefactors, and yet, the pattern is about as transparent as it could possibly be. Their careers, their income are directly dependent on continuing to produce inflammatory research findings, the more shrill the better. Without the "scientific" backup, the political agenda isn't sustainable. Simple stuff here.

 

Someday the bus will go over a cliff and kill us all but we are not driving it and our cigar smoke won't be the cause of the wreck.

 

If you want to smoke in the back of the bus shouldn't you first prove that it won't have any unintended consequences before doing so?

 

Correct. And I've pointed out my primary reason dozens of times on this forum. The reason...changes in climate cost money either through mitigation or adaptation. This is all well documented in the IPCC AR5 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

 

I'm not oblivious to the fact that 10,000 years is but a geological blink of an eye. The last 10,000 years is an important block of time for two main reasons.

- It is an interglacial. While rapid warming is not unprecedented over the last million years it is highly unusual for it to be occurring during a warm phase (interglacial).
- It represents the entirety of human civilization. No era of human civilization has experienced this rate of warming. And it just happens to be occurring at time when humans are putting enormous demands and pressure on the geosphere.

 

Exactly as I previously stated. You measure climate around man and how long man has been here which is a blink of earths eye.

 

I realize this statement isn't directed at me. But, I don't make any money by being an AGW advocate. In fact, it's far more likely that it will cost me money. And I have no political agenda. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. And I defend many conservative principals so you and I may not be as different as you think. And if you met me outside of this forum you might be surprised at how easy I am to get along with.

 

So, @Josephwalker, you can see what I mean. Change is terrible, even if it isn't, because, well, as the IPCC implied, they think it will cost folks money... So, all those folks who suffer today because it's too cold, they're screwed because if we allow it to warm up, it will cost them money to, well, adapt?

 

The choice is yours. It basically boils down to do you either want 1) to adapt to the warming which will suppress future GDP by say X% or do you want 2) to mitigate the warming by spending Y% of GDP? Note that the abundance of evidence suggests that X > Y and by a lot. And that cost does not include other noble goals of maintaining the Earth's carrying capacity for humans, preserving non-human life, etc. Nor does it factor in moral dilemma of kicking the can down the road and forcing future generations to pay or our mess. Personally, I think spending Y to avoid X because Y < X is the better option. Policy makers (especially those in the United States) disagree with me and the entirety of the scientific community. I also think maintaining Earth's carrying capacity for humans is desirable. Likewise, I have moral objections to the transfer of wealth from future generations to the current generation. But, that's just me.

 

Well, I have a bias towards to optimizing the geosphere with human interests in mind. It's not that I'm apathetic to other interests. I just value the consequences of AGW as they related to human thrivability over other things. For that reason I'm more concerned with the climate as it relates to the era of human civilization. Can you blame me?

 

This isn't a binary conversation, why expect it would be. First, I don't accept that insignificant warming might "suppress future GDP". Frankly, I find that ridiculous. Second, when you refer to "mitigating" warming, you have presented about zero evidence that we actually might have anything that requires actual mitigation. So, from a policy perspective, I'd say this. Perhaps it's much more effective to invest in the kinds of technologies that assist our ability to enjoy a warming climate? And by "warmer" I mean, .5 C while it might last. Clearly, I think there are headwinds to that whole warming "trend". I wonder, though, given your concerns you'd identified, why then are you so supportive of the current methods of climate mitigation? I mean, if you're concerned that we might transfer wealth from future generations, why not be worried about moving wealth between the developed, and undeveloped world? This is, and continues to be the objective of the UN and the IPCC which you continue to express your support of.

 

Read http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. It is the culmination of 12,000+ lines of evidence reviewed by nearly 3,000 experts to make a 2500 page report summarizing the evidence.

Read http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. It is the culmination of 9,000+ lines of evidence reviewed by 1,000+ experts to make a 1500 page report summarizing the evidence.

What current methods? The United States effectively has no mitigation policy in place and refuses to even participate in the development of policies in the world venue.

I'm worried about that too. What I want is for the United States to be leaders in global warming mitigation. I want us to develop the technologies for mitigation and to get filthy stinky rich off of them. I want the transfer of wealth to flow from those that need the technology to the United States. I'm even okay if that means the poorer countries have to pay us for that technology. That's the way the free market works and I'm a huge proponent of free market and capitalistic economic activity. Those that do the innovating and take the risks are those that make the money. I have no shame in being rich and monetizing the fixes to problems as long as we cause less harm than what we fix. It's the American way. Yes, I know I'm going to crucified by the liberals on this forum if they see this post.

Maybe it is for the UN...I don't know. But, I've not seen any statement in the 5,000+ page IPCC AR5 report that suggests wealth should move from rich to poor.

 

So, your defense is, ... blah blah blah, nothing specific, no actual citation of either evidence that requires mitigation, or a qualified expectation that one is frankly necessary. Further, blah blah, sort of support market forces, but still a calculated benefit for you discussion should say your version of "technology", whatever that might be, that makes you rich, right? followed by your ignorance of the well documented reliance of the UN and the use of the IPCC to justify their wealth redistribution scheme vis a vis AGW. When do you suppose we should begin to find this credible?

 

No...the issue is how much humans are exacerbating the natural processes of Earth in which the potential exists to negatively alter climate and other things . The second part of this issue is trying to define the potential...

 

Why can'y people understand that China, India and other countries are NOT on this planet and nothing they do would affect the atmosphere. Therefore, if all manufacturing and production were shifted from the United States to those countries on other planets the problem would be solved. For income, those Americans who lose their jobs should receive a lifetime of government provided free income.

The other problem is a massive conspiracy of disinformation. The false historic claims of hurricanes, temperature change and sea level changes occurring prior to the industrial revolution needs to be stopped. Until the industrial revolution, the earth's temperature and sea level had never changed for billions of years and prior to the 1800s there had never been a hurricane or tornado.

That appears to be the reasoning anyway.

 

No citation? I just gave you links to two reports that collectively list 20,000+ citations reviewed by 4,000+ experts to compile a 4,000+ page report summarizing those citations. Look, I'm sorry that the evidence is so vast that I can't fit it all into a single post, but it's not my fault that you want to pretend like it doesn't even exist.

And speaking of things that don't exist...where is your proof that dumping 40 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere won't have any unintended consequences?

I get it. You hate the UN. So why not sidestep the UN and have the United States host their own climate talks so that we can control the tone and direction?

 

Ok, that was actually pretty funny.

 

I see, but couldn't be bothered to actually pull out say, an example of the things you agree with? No? And frankly, how about this exercise, where is your proof that the additional 30 or so GTs of CO2 has more of an effect than the naturally occurring 400 or more GTs produced naturally by nature? Still crickets on this.

I don't hate the UN. I'm just not willing to play their silly game of wealth redistribution that seemingly bothers you but only if we're talking about future generations, which seems pretty conflicted with the fact that the UN/IPCC intend to do the same between the developed and the undeveloped world. And while we're at it, just who do you think wins in those grants? The people? Again, laughable.

 

Like I said this is where we part company. I see the earth as the ancient planet it is and I see us as beings that just got here. When I look at past climate I look at eaths history independent of mankind. In short I don't think geological time began when man got here. To do so with climate is to study the last minute of your life and draw conclusions about your entire life based on that one minute. You severely limit yourself with this approach and are bound to make erroneous conclusions.

 

My point was we are not driving the bus. We are along for the ride and whatever minor tweaks our C02 may or may not contribute will be swept aside like a feather in a hurricane by natural causes.

 

If only one science agency on the planet believed that.....LOL

 

Again, agree with this. My observation is that if you choose this, it allows you to constantly reinvent your priorities. Good or bad. And, I agree that it severely limits the perspective.

 

Then prove it. Show me the natural mechanism by which CO2 will be swept aside like a feather in a hurricane.