Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

Your sources were a conspiracy blog, and noted Climastrologist Scafetta, the guy who thinks the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn controls earth's climate.

When the moon is in the seventh house,
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace shall guide the planets
And love will steer the stars.
This is the dawning of the age of denialists,
Age of denialists,
Denialists!
Denailists!

And here's what the world actual says about climate sensutivity, from IPCC AR5, chapter 12.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

 

My sources are the papers listed in that link. AR5 was published 4 years ago.

 

And your source, being flagrantly dishonest, only cherrypicked the few data points at the lower end.

That's shockingly dishonest science, and you support it.

 

It’s a lot more than a few. What are the errors contained in those papers ?? The dishonesty is the alarmism and economic damage caused by alarmists who predict the end of the world due to AGW and that politically possible actions will make any difference. And the basic immorality of denying third world countries access to inexpensive, reliable, and available (24/7/365) electric power.

 

Well Environmental protection has become a partisan issue and I think I know the reason for that.

First it shouldn't be a partisan issue, we all live on the planet.

So the reason why has become partisan is because of the solution. So people that tend to vote Democrat think the solution is government Force, and that most certainly is not the solution I've run into people that will pollute just to be defiant and whether or not we make that illegal what you think of the person that does that you can't unpollute the pollution that has been made.

So people don't like living under dictators. So my only disagreement with regards to this whole debate is that the government cannot solve the problem they are inept in every way that exists.

I think the free market is a better choice because if people want to buy renewable energy they will. And this is an area for clever marketing so if I sell a product that's just the product people want the product then they buy it but if I sell a product that attaches a moral incentive to it I may be able to charge more for the product. Look at hybrid cars.

Too if you want this to stop being a partisan issue meaning if you really give half a s*** about the planet and not to Paula text which I find doubtful stop making it out to be about politics simple as that.

 

I'm personally I don't think these people give a damn about the environment what they want is a more powerful stronger government notice how the solutions are always Force the people to comply with rules. And nothing has happened if anything the problem has become worse.

 

So why is it every solution that the left comes up with is government Force and dictatorship?

Maybe this is why there are what you call deniers. They are fighting against the erosion of our freedoms or our culture.

 

It does become worse because there is less economic growth for zero reduction in temperature. It’s immoral as well and a poster child example of the politization of “science”.

 

Their solutions make no economic sense hence the use of force and the demonization of those who disagree.

 

Well then awe us with your stunning scientific prowess and irrefutable facts. The second you start quoting huckster scientists who peddle this crap for grant money it all falls apart. You do realize that this con began with the Al Gore hoax then folks such as yourself gave it a life of it's own and it just goes around and around. We would be a whole lot better off trying to figure out a way to pay down the national debt than to waste time and money on this hokum. That would be trying to do something about a real problem unlike this circle jerk in an echo chamber.

 

How much is completely known. What to do about it is the question. And for this purpose the Paris Agreement was created. Denialists bombarded it for purely political purposes. It will go on just the same. But we won't have any input in it.

 

Not from my viewpoint. Those that do not go along with it are marginalized. The biggest joke is this claim that 97% of scientists believe in man made global warming. I went through the survey that was use to justify the numbers and I was part of the 97%, even though I had serious doubts. It is purely politics from both sides. False claims abound.

 

The paris agreement is nonsense. If you are worried about global warming, do something about it yourself. The government or governments have absolutely no incentive to do anything. Maybe they could stop fighting wars and shlepping their politicians around in private jets, I guess.

anyway, the only way this is going to be stopped (if there is anything we can do) is by individuals doing it on their own.

 

Yes. Very difficult. And this is why it has taken over a hundred years of studies to arrive at the Consensus position.

The only thing that can get you ridiculed is denying scientific knowledge without a basis. It can be, as it should be, career damaging. On the other hand, if you question scientific knowledge with a basis.... those are the ones who get the Nobel prices. And this is why Scientists always strive to question scientific knowledge. But they won't do it unless they have a firm basis. That's how Scientific progress occurs.

It "may". It "may" be proven wrong that our interpretations that there is a large planet beyond the orbit of Pluto is wrong. But if you were to pretend to disprove Newton's Theory of Gravity based on an oddity in the orbit of Neptune, you would be laughed off the floor. The more evidence for a theory, the larger the burden to prove it wrong is required. And given the immense body of evidence that AGW has accumulated, the burden that an alternative explanation would need to meet is quite impressive. And trying to question it based on the corrective mechanisms in Science is certain to get you a well deserved non-complimentary nickname.

I don't know why you keep using the term "popularity". Popularity has no relevance whatsoever in Science.

Science is not about "being right". It's about proving you're right. Galileo was right about the stars being extremely distant objects. But he couldn't prove it. He made the mistake of petulantly including it in his writings and his teachings as if it were proven fact. His prosecutors feasted on this fact during his trial. He finally proved it about 10 years later.

It has been proven scientifically and beyond a reasonable doubt that, humans are significant enough to trigger a series of events that has led to Global Warming. We did it "accidentally" (in the sense that it was not the desired outcome). But humans could potentially cause much much greater damage to the environment than just Global Warming, if they were to take that up on purpose. Forget other "factors". We don't, of course. But if your argument is that "we have no power".... we most certainly do.

 

Sure. Here you go http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

It has been "proven" with equations which are untested. Computers are wonderful, but with no way to verify except with dependent data, they are only as good as the assumptions made to program them.

 

There's a lot we can do. I gave one option. Unless by "we" you mean the U.S. under the current administration. In which case you would be correct.

 

What ticks me off is that it is established fact that the single biggest driver of climate change is our dependence on eating meat.

That fact is everywhere and yet its no where.

This is like heart disease. Biggest killer and mostly ignored.

IMO, we won't change though. People don't want to know and when they know they don't want to admit it. Same with the cruelty. If one is willing to see the cruelty but refuses to change their life so they are no longer the cause, what does that say about that person?

 

What can be done and what will be the impact on economic growth and global average temperature ?? And will those who implement the "there's a lot we can do" be reelected ??

 

I've decided that today I'm not going to respond to ridiculous unsubstantiated statements.

Maybe you can try again tomorrow. But I can't guarantee.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

It's absolutely true. None of what's been done to reduce CO2 emissions is not the result of government policy, regulation, and legislation.

 

Not at all true.

Read my post above. Stop eating meat, dairy and eggs unless you produce it yourself. Even then, its an incredible waste of resources.

Anyone who is interested, read John Robbins. He's the son/nephew of Baskin Robbins and 30-ish years ago, he walked away from his fortune because the family fortune is made by sickening children, torturing animals and raping the planet. Nominated for a Pulitzer, very well documented facts.

Kathy Freston is excellent as well.

https://www.johnrobbins.info/

http://kathyfreston.com/

 

I've researched it for more than 30 years. Its true.

Educate yourself.

 

I doubt you have the slightest idea as to what the Paris Agreement is.