Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

I would agree with you on that then.

 

I don't consider 200 years to be "imminent". There is no reason to believe that global warming will be so extreme and so rapid that humans will be unable to adapt to it.

If we truly believe that sea levels are going to be 9 feet higher by the end of the century, or whatever the alarmists are saying today, then we have plenty of time to prepare for it by building levees and taking other measures. Do we see that happening in all vulnerable cities? Do we see the price of waterfront property plummeting? No, what we see is a propaganda war against fossil fuels and a concerted effort to get us to ship more and more money to the third world. None of that is going to have any measurable effect on the climate. Coal plants continue to be built around the world. NG is abundant and cheap and will be used. Gasoline and diesel will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. So, if CO2 is really the culprit we are told it is, why aren't governments building levees and such instead of bring in carbon taxes and subsidizing electric cars and such nonsense?

 

Yeah I dont agree with anything you have said, short sided view on the topic.

 

9 feet is way too high. The IPCC's AR5 has nothing even remotely close. Right now the current rate would extrapolate to about a 1 additional foot by 2100. The IPCC says about 2 maybe 3 feet is the highest we could expect.

 

Not even wrong .

Since religion in difference from natural sciences is based on empirical evidence while natural sciences have no use for empirical evidence your belief you expressed here while not submitting even a shred of evidence to back it up is some kind of craziness or of a blocked mind or of a brainwashed mind.

As I a said there is no difference between believers in GW/CC and deniers of such belief.

 

Well, another easy target to throw knives at.

You hit the heart as usual.

But was it ever there, the heart?

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but I've always said AGW is not something that warrants panic and knee jerk reactions.

 

Yes I know. The alarmist stuff that is often published by the msm is not what the scientists are actually saying.

 

Exactly.

 

Common...

You know that I am saying you are getting easy targets to believe in things which are not there.

Common...

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-become-arid.522744/page-12#post-1068514861

Converting them to your perversion.

As soon as they believe in AWG they are full converts.

Even if they argue against AWG on the same terms and the same grounds as believers in AWG your mission is accomplished, they are converted into perversion.

 

It doesn't matter what you or anyone consider problematic, because no one knows it would be problematic, much less whether it can be prevented.

The analogy is exposed as utterly preposterous, when one merely stops to realize that whereas the medical community has observed millions of cancer cases, climatologists have yet to witness a single case of the alleged disease with which mankind has allegedly infected Mommy Erf.

 

Not only does the vast majority of climate specialists agree and evidence has been found in ancient ice core drillings but the effect of runaway greenhouse gasses has been observed on other planets like Venus. You should watch Cosmos he discusses the natural "respiration" and carbon cycle of earth and how its being altered. Even if your a climate change denier Im sure you have seen the pictures of Chinas smog, do we really want to just keep going down this road? I will never understand the persistence and stubbornness to continually rape the earth. I guess thats the difference between people that actually care about the environment we live in and those who just dont give a **** cause they will be dead and gone before it matters to them.

 

If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are now for an extended period of time it will become a problem. Actually, if we stop all fossil fuel burning right now, it'll still be a problem. It might not be catastrophic, but it'll be a problem that people have to deal with.

 

What's missing is a reason to find that more compelling than a consensus among astrologers.

Swell, get back to me when they observe it on other planets like Earth.

What exactly do "we" have to do with China?

OTOH, I understand very well the value of emotional hyperbole to those for whom science serves no greater purpose than as a propaganda engine that propels society towards rule by ecosharia law.

Or, the difference between those who care about liberty and those who are content to rob future generations of it.

This might be compelling, were it a statement of knowledge rather than mere belief. Things being what they are...

 

It's a statement built on experiment and empirical fact. We have done countless experiments over the last 150 years that undeniably show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And there is an undeniable link between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the burning of fossil fuels. Physical theory predicts the atmosphere will warm in the presence of this CO2 and computer simulations support that prediction. And it's undeniable that the Earth is, in fact, warming as predicted. It's even warming in the same way with higher latitudes warming faster than lower latitudes, the lower troposphere warming faster the middle troposphere while the stratosphere cools. The evidence is abundant. You are ignoring it. It's not a matter of if we are contributing to the warming. It's a matter of how much. And the vast majority of climate scientists who are way smarter than you or I overwhelmingly agree on this point.

 

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

"Climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

People don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (199; Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#2107f6783414

 

Still think you can beat Mother Nature, how arrogant.

 

1. Everything you listed is from an outdated opinion piece by a B.A. In Phiolosophy and debunked climate denier. An actual study came out in 2016 reaffirming the 90%+, with revised methodology to prevent scrutiny. It has not been debunked.

2. The main scientist (Richard Tol) who disputed the 2013 consensus' methodology, and who every far right blogger and forum poster uses to try and dismiss the consensus as a myth (without even reading what he has to say), stated this,

"The consensus is of course in the high nineties."

Kind of hard to recover from that.

The consensus is 90%+, and more importantly the evidence (compiled very well in the 13 federal agency study, which has yet to be refuted) has not been refuted.

 

You mean like the planet coming out of an Ice Age?

Hmmm...

 

This is a fraudulent statement. The HadCRUT data actually shows 0.22C/decade of warming over the last decade and half.

 

If it were built on nothing else, there would be nothing to debate.

The problem being, obviously, that said theory isn't nearly as good at predicting weather 2 weeks down the road as Newton's Law of Gravitation is at predicting the movement of celestial objects.

And don't bother telling me climate isn't weather in the hope of obscuring their common elements.

Actually there isn't much of that readily available to the general public. What we have are reports of evidence, which people like you try to get skeptics to waste time invalidating.

Even stipulating to this dubious assertion, why exactly would a reasonable person find it compelling?

 

Actually we're lucky if we can get wave placements ballparked even 1 week out nevermind 2 when forecasting the weather. But, forecasting weather is an entirely different beast than forecasting climate. The former is focused on precise parameters at specific locations and specific times while the later is focused on average parameters over large areas spanning long periods of time. In a lot of ways this relaxation of expectation makes climate forecasting easier than weather forecasting. Keep in mind, that the nature of the warming forecasted by models was nearly perfect. That is the warming is far more pronounced at the poles (especially the north pole) than at the lower latitudes and the stratosphere cools while the troposphere warms (especially the lower part). The magnitude of the warming in the lower troposphere has been overestimated. However, models are pretty close and the observed warming is still within the 95% confidence interval. No other method for predicting the global mean temperature is as successful. In fact, most alternate methods fail so badly they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct.

Nearly all of it is available to the general public. Most models are open source. Most observations are readily available for download. Global mean temperature datasets are freely available and the their source code for generating them is open source as well. Anyone can read the academic literature.

 

You have not addressed a single point in the post you quoted.

You have provided no reference.

None of working theories of physical sciences, none of the written physical laws, none of all invention made ever required a consensus.

Consensus is no part of the scientific method.

It is a part and a proof of pseudoscience.

 

You are not quite correct.

There is nothing to debate if propositions of a theory are built on a confirmed and repeated experiment, because it is science.

There is nothing to debate if propositions of a “theory” are not built on a confirmed and repeated experiment because it is a belief, and ideology, a religion.

The first of all iamanonman always lies and he knows it.

GW “ theory” has been having no experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy from the sun during the day than it emits to the infinite mass of the coldest body of the universe during the night.

Therefore GW “ theory” whether man-made or non-man made does not belong to science, but to a religion, political ideology, a belief.

That is the beginning and the end of the debate, the second of all does not really matter.

Actually predicting weather used to employ only Newton Mechanics and some similar well known theories until political ideologists and perverts started pushing real scientists out of the field of meteorology. Still the perverts may not have the same success as they have in other fields because the results of the predictions of weather do matter, while climates do not require predictions because they do not change by the definition you and other public are not aware of though it is a middle school subject.

 

You're right. Consensus among the scientists is not a part of the scientific method.

I was merely addressing the fact that Zorro is trying to debunk an outdated study from 2013. The new one is revised and remains to be refuted, from 2016. Certainly not an op-ed from a Philosophy BA who hasn't even read the new study. Furthermore, the person he is quoting as reference (the main guy who refuted the 2013 study) agrees that there is a consensus in the 90s. He was just not a fan of the methodology back in 2013. lol.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ublican-witness-global-warming-consensus-real
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

But you're right to a degree. The consensus by itself is meaningless. Lets forget the high 90% consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real.

Then lets look at the actual data,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

100+ pages. 200+ studies. Pretty conclusive.

I'd like to see someone try to refute even one of those pages, with peer reviews studies as citation.