Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You should familiarize yourself with what the world expected America to commit to as part of the Paris Accord.

 

The last thing Democrats/neo-communist around the world want to see is America developing a bad ass nuclear industry.

 

What did they demand from China?

 

That’s the sad, sad truth.

 

The world demanded that China accept our generous offer if they pinky promise to use the money to modify their industries to more eco-friendly models, at some point in the future, and without any oversight.

 

Uh.... can you cite any prominent AGW advocates who say that we, as individuals, have to do ANY of those things?

 

Opinions vary.

 

Uh...ever hear of the Green New Deal? How about the folks who wanted to ban fireplaces, wood burning stoves, lawn mowers, cows, planes, fossil fuels....

 

I asked you first but I knew you would back down from your claim when asked for facts to support it.

 

A citation is a quotation from a specified source, giving enough info that the reader can check accuracy and context.

 

So much misinformation so little data

 

NO a Problems!

https://www.ipcc.ch/

Feel free to chose which report you would like to debate

 

This is the underlying reason that there are climate sceptics / deniers. They aren’t prepared to make sacrifices for the greater good.

But instead of arguing against the policies, they deny the underlying science. That’s disingenuous. It is intellectually weak.

Here’s my perspective. The underlying science is strong and convincing. There is virtually no doubt that burning fossil fuels has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last couple of hundred years. There is broad scientific consensus that such increase in CO2 has been the cause of the observed increase in the temperature of the earth, and the the earth will continue to warm.

The real question is - what to do about it? It is a classic and extreme example of the tragedy of the commons. In order to reduce the increase in CO2, everyone has to take steps. That’s why virtually every country signed they Paris accord. That’s why it was so discouraging for USA to drop out.

But there may be other options. Maybe it is more economically efficient to let the warming happen and deal with the consequences. I don’t know. I haven’t seen a study that addresses that kind of trade off.

What I do know is that it is intellectually weak and dishonest to attack the science because you don’t like some of the policies that have been proposed in order to address the science.

 

I am neither a sceptic nor a "denier", you are unable to articulate my position on CC due to ignorance. Or deceit.

The solutions offered all have one thing in common, they require American money to be successful.

 

Do you accept the science?
Do you accept that burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of atmospheric CO2?
And that such increase in concentration is the driving force behind global warming?

 

20,000 years ago much of the globe was under ice. Then one day it started getting warmer. It has nothing to do with humans. Yet you need my money to fix a problem we didn't cause.

Come up with a solution. Financial redistribution isn't the answer.

 

So you reject the science. As I said in my first post - you don’t like the solutions that have been proposed so instead of coming up with different policies you attack the science.

 

No. In the 80's and 90's we still had time to reverse things so that life on this planet would be much as we had enjoyed it for future generations. That was what people were being warned about then - the limited time left to save the planet as we knew it for future generations. That is no longer the case. We already see the signs of the damage we have done. Even if countries like your own were to stop increasing the damage you are doing to the planet right away we would still see massive deterioration before things stabilised. It is arguable whether we still have the time to hold our societies together. That is why many people now are working on Deep Stage Adaptation. So, you ignored it before for the good life now and now the 'good life' you knew is unlikely to be experienced by your grandchildren. The only question left is whether we are going to take this to our extinction which looks now a real possibility.

 

The problem is political. The solution is financial. Science is not involved.

 

Are you speaking to China and India in this regard, or are you addressing America again?

 

Gee, how can anyone not be persuaded by notables like Mr. Heller, whose electrical engineering, and the post office box "Institute" enforces him, along with their pioneering researchers to show cigarettes and second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and his convincing Obama was not born in the USA!

These handful of contrarians Denialists, all brilliant luminaries, so successfully counter all these thousands of world scientists from our greatest universities, but who all are actually Fake News!

 

Well that’s a pretty unequivocal rejection of the science!

 

Please point out the misinformation.

 

Start with your focus on nuclear

That is not the only option

So, instead of relying on what some shock jock has told is the intent how about you read the actual IPCC fifth assessment report on mitigation of climate change

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

 

You may be correct. But there are two problems:

1) We would have to start living like the Amish to have any chance of slowing global warming. That's not going to happen.

2) Most (all?) proposed solutions include a healthy dose of socialism, which is completely unrelated to the scientific issue. Joining global warming and Marxism turns off a lot of people.