The New Climate Reality

I read it. It says: "The amount of future warming Earth will experience depends on how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we emit in coming decades." That claim is such a blatant, absurd, anti-scientific fabrication that it removed any qualifications either you or climate.gov ever had to be taken seriously.

 

You obviously need a little inspiration. You didn’t read much of it.
I highlighted the relevant parts.

Past and future change in global temperature
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to NOAA's 2020 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate.

 

You need help. This talks about the rate change (which is what) during the industrial revolution. And what does that represent on a graph of temps ?


Past and future change in global temperature
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to NOAA's 2020 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate.

 

Predictably, the video you claimed was relevant to climate science was actually about politicians. Pathetic.

 

Maybe you didn’t read what it was response to…..you’re not taken seriously anymore even by those in your own sphere who were once deniers…the deniers are wilting away.

It’s taken them a while, like 30:years, but being presented as a buffoon all the time when it comes to climate change, made political deniers wilt. You’ll come around IMO.

 

What worked very well ? Did you think the massive increase in deficit spending was going to subtract from GDP ? That Tax cuts to corporations paid for in full and beyond was going to decrease GDP ?

At the end of Reagan's tenure - both the economic assessment and the writing on the wall was distinctly negative. As in the case with Trump - you get a short term boost for long term losses. Daddy Bush had to raise taxes - and the situation was Dire by the time Clinton set foot in office.

 

Yes, your stance is. You’re among a dying breed. Something like the species rate of extinction since the industrial revolution began, likely do to CC.

 

I read it all. It's nothing but alarmist trash.

And predictably, that "relevant" part is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't even attempt to show that:
1. The change is anything other than natural variation
2. It was caused by CO2, or
3. It has been harmful.

I have stipulated many times that the increase in solar activity in the 20th century, to the highest sustained level in thousands of years, has returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. The information you consider "relevant," above, says nothing whatever to challenge that fact or favor an alternative interpretation of the data. Nothing.

 

??? Lost what battle - You are spouting generalities with no qualification what you are talking about -- and with no relevance to assessment of Fiscal Responsibility..

Twirling around in a circle crying "I won - I won" because you never started the race and the rest of the pack has yet to cross the finish line on an oval track-- is not winning mate --- you have to participate to win

 

I need patience.

That's easy: it's irrelevant.

Something mathy?

Another miracle of irrelevancy.

 

Just say, you know more then NOAA, NASA and every major accredited university and major corporation in the world….oh, our military too. Really, make this a universal declaration.

 

<yawn> You're certainly prolific. I'll give you that.

 

I'm just more honest.

There is no such consensus as you claim. You simply made it up.

I know more than you, anyway.

 

Well, you just failed a simple math test. But make up some woo woo.

 

No, I agree with scientists because that is their specialty. How many times do I have to say I am not a scientist? You want to pretend you're one, be my guest, but you're not convincing me because....you're just a random guy on the internet.

Let me ask you, do you get sage advice on your blood pressure from your plumber?

When the plurality of scientists agree on a topic, I tend to go with that. You want to convince me, convince THEM first.

 

Pick out an accredited university with a science department..go for it.

 

I'll come around when and if the evidence of actual physical events warrants it. I won't be holding my breath.

 

Not for long…

 

It was good enough for Mitch when he found out a majority of constituents agree with a Biden investment in CC mitigation……and he wasn’t getting invited by his donors to accept more money. Major Corporations think your ideas are FOS. I gave two…pick out another. Let’s see.

 

When the plurality of scientists agree on a topic, I tend to go with that. You want to convince me, convince THEM first.

 

Best response to a denier I’ve heard in this thread.

 

How about the American Meteorological Society, which surveyed its 7,000 members in 2012, receiving 1,862 responses. Only 52% of respondents said they think global warming over the 20th century was mostly man-made. That is not even close to a consensus, let alone the universal agreement you claimed.

 

Obviously.

Obviously not. When you make claims that are just self-evidently false, that's called, "gaslighting." Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers do it a lot.

 

Because it is ridiculous to think that even if they were well versed in their interpretation of science that they have any chance of really making a marked difference in having a debate online. If they truly believed in their findings there is already a protocol in place to disseminate and peer review their work. They have no intention of doing that because the only thing motivating these posters is their freaking ego, not science.

 

It's sad that you think institutions' politically motivated opinions are more credible than your own judgment on the facts of the case.