Climate Change denial vs History

Great Doc... How much time do I got...

Well... you might die in 3 months to 1000 years... So make the most out of each day...

 

We can produce a timeline. The arctic will likely be free of ice in the summer by the 2050's. But we could make a bunch of changes that push that date back.

 

Yes and smoke A LOT. You MIGHT not get cancer. Yes that is a POSSIBILITY. LOL

 

Pretty much as silly as claiming disaster from "climate change" while the observation is showing the predicted calamities are not happening. But you know, we really need to act in the next 5 years (Michael Mann of East Anglia "hide the decline" fame says the doomsday clock is now 2020 after which it will be too late to save the planet. The hoaxters have been predicting it would be "too late" if we didn't act in 5 years (10 years in some cases) for the last 30 years.

Also as silly as the hoaxers claiming that they can keep us all safe if we just give them all our money and control over our lives.

 

Not in the next five years. The time to act is now

 

"Warmers" claiming ice caps gone by 2050!!!!

Anyone wanna take a bet on it?

 

The poster asked about ignoring the usefulness of the Scientific Method. I said you can ignore it if you want, or you don't. By which I mean that either you believe the Scientific Method works, or you don't believe it works. There is no middle ground. I wasn't talking about any particular Scientific theory. There are, of course, many levels of "certainty" in any particular Scientific theory.

BTW, you make a big (though not uncommon) mistake. In coloquial language, "theory" means something that is not proven. But in Science, "Theory" is equivalent to "explanation". The word itself does not indicate if it's proven or not. So there are proven and unproven "theories". Proven Theories include Cell Theory, Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity... Unproven Theories would include M-Theory, Exogenesis Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc.

The Theory of Evolution is very much proven. Anthropogenic Global Warminng (AGW) is also a proven theory, but Climate Change is not even a Theory. It's more an "estimation". Pretty much like when there is a hurricane coming your way, and you see those cone graphs on TV. You know something is going to happen, but you are not quite sure how bad it's going to get. There is a Climate Change Theory, but it refers to something different. And there is also an Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, which is on the fringe of whether it's proven or not. At this point you could argue either way.

 

So you deny Michael Mann's conclusion? Do you hate science?

And to "act" means what to you? To the hoaxers it means I give them all my money and control over my life. One of them, a Minister from Canada claimed "climate change" was the world's greatest opportunity to have wealth distribution whether it was true or not. Which camp are you in? Are you a true believer in the climate religion or one of the hoaxers promising to save me if I just give them all my money and control over my life?

 

Well....I am in vegas. LOL

 

Ok lets look at your claims. Who has said you must hand over ALL of your money and ALL control of your life. Remember we what to be exact in our claims. Exact names please.

 

WHAT!!!!! I feel so much better now. Al Gore said in 2007 the Arctic would be free of ice by 2014, so.......

 

What does "to act" mean to you, then?

 

Thank god I get my science from real scientists......don't you?

 

So you don't have exact names? Interesting. I thought claims needed to be exact. It means a thousand things most of which will never even touch your life.

 

For openers, I do not intellectually engage with someone who uses loaded words (such as "deniers," thereby piggybacking off Holocaust deniers); and, moreover, I do not wish to engage with those whose argument is circular (i.e. "I have 'science, facts and rational thought' on my side; so those who take a different view must be anti-science, anti-facts, and anti-rational thought.")

 

I didn't want to get into that discussion here. Would have preferred a different thread. But any time you see "all [anything] agree"", it's usually easy to debunk. Because you only need one instance of somebody who doesn't agree to debunk it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ks-up-in-states-that-raised-minimum-wage.html

Economics is a science. And science teaches us not to rely on "simple logic" exclusively. It is reasonable to think that if, with current wages, an employee adds $8 to an employers income at the current minimum wage, at a higher minimum wage it will add more than $8. If people earn more, they will spend more. But the fact is that if you increase too much, some employers might be out of business. The point is that it's not something that will be solved with "simple logic"

Please don't confuse Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with Climate Change. The first is the fact that the surface of the Earth is getting warmer, and that this is due to human activity. This is settled Science. The second refers to the consequences of AGW. This is an estimation based on models and there are varying degrees as to the effects. Even though they are very much related, they are not the same thing.

In Science, what scientists believe is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they can prove.

I'm not talking about green jobs. Obviously you make more money chopping down trees than you would going house to house picking up old newspapers to recycle. I'm talking about new technology. And things that we will need to do anyway. For example, it is reasonable to expect stronger hurricanes in the future due to the warming of the earth's seas. A proposal was made to build a huge raft, it would be about 2 miles long by 2 miles wide. During hurricane season, it would be in the coast of Africa, where hurricanes form. And it would travel under storm systems that had the potential to become hurricanes. That would impede the system from acquiring the force to become a devastating hurricane. It was estimated that the cost would be about $20 million dollars. That's for designing it, building it and operating it for 10 years. That's one-fifth the cost to rebuild the devastation by just Katrina. Without counting the human cost.

The fact that foreign companies beat our environmentally-friendly companies is indication that we need more, not less, Trade Agreements. And more, not less, agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, or the Paris agreement. This administration is doing exactly the contrary. And only for political reasons.

Elon Musk's company, SolarCity, builds one of the most efficient solar panels in the world. But here in Florida you get a fine if you install solar panels. So what incentive does SolarCity have to make them better? I'm sure some other country will realize this soon and start pullinng ahead of us.

My message is getting a bit long. You raise good points, but let me try to respond briefly so this doesn't grow out of proportions.

Not if our federal government stops supporting it. And, instead, as many Republican governors have been doing, decide that it's not good for the business of Oil and Electrical Corporations, and therefore must be stopped.

I don't know what alarmism you mean. If somebody is screaming "we're all gonna die!" then we don't pay much attention and move on. They don't have to pay attention to any alarmism. But they do need to be alarmed enough to do their job.

How would you know that? You are here joining the ranks of those who think they know what the consequences will be. And we don't know. If the worst case scenario comes true, sea level will rise 10 feet this century. I live 4 miles from the shore. So my home, and millions more, will be underwater. That is most definitely more costly than mitigating AGW so that it rises only 2 or 3 feet. It might still be catastrophic for some, but maybe we can adjust.

The two extremes would be those who only want to prevent vs those who only want to adjust. I guess the first group is what you call "alarmists". I don't know the name of the second group... but they'll eventually get one. Level-headed people will say: "we don't know". We need more research to fine-tune the scenarios, and find the tipping point as to where to adjust, and where to prevent.

I can't believe that people are skeptical of Science just because somebody exaggerates. The best thing the right could do, if this were the case, is to press on the Science. They would get the backing of the scientific community and, I'm sure, the majority of level-headed people. But what you see is people in power actually denying science. And you say they do this as ... revenge?... to punish?... those who they believe go too far.

 

First off - the climate models do agree with the date... the trend is up. Second .. the idea that a climate model would not be expected to deviate from the data is abject nonsense to anyone who has ever worked with models ( Such as me). It is also no surprise that almost all the models are wrong in the same direction. These models are not developed in a bubble such that most of them would share the same flaws.

The bottom line is that both the models and the data show a significant increase.

Second - temperature increase is not the best measure of Global warming. If I put a glass of ice water into a temperature controlled box and raise the temp by one degree ... what happens to the temperature of the water ?

Answer - the water temp will stay roughly the same (only having a very slight increase due to the lag between the cooling effect of the ice).

The big change will be the rate at which the ice melts. What will also change is the convection currents - movement of the water - these currents will increase.

So - what we expect to see with Global warming is not a rapid increase in the temperature of the earth (and good thing). What we expect to see is a increase in the rate of ice melt and an increase in extreme weather ... and this is what we are seeing.

 

Well, if you "believe" the ice caps will be melted by 2050, a certain % must melt each year... That's like 3% a year... Unless you think it's all gonna be good till like 2040, then everything magicly changes...

 

Don't know. We need research to find out. And, more importantly, what the consequences of them melting would be. But this administration wants to defund research.

 

I thought the "science" was in and the earth is warming at x rate.

 

This one, http://ipcc.ch/

I don't

Not what I said. Look at the context. I said the main reason was lack of information. I only said that there might be other very minor motives.

Oh, I know a lot of people who hate buffoons. I hate some buffoons. So your premise is debunked. But I don't consider Gore a buffoon at all. I think very highly of him and everything he has accomplished.

 

Not really. Just that it's warming at an unprecedented rate. I guess if you take the numbers, you could figure out an average, and some might call that a "rate". But that's not what the science is about.

 

Unprecedented rate? How fast is that? If it keeps up at this unprecedented rate, when will the ice caps be gone?

 

Faster than ever before. If you want to obtain an average, you would need to add up the numbers, i guess. I don't know if anybody has done that. IPCC puts out a report per year. If you're really interested, you can find all the reports here http://ipcc.ch/

Or you can just google it. Somebody might have done that already.

 

Well it has been melting every year in the artic