Can I get even one left winger to view the climate of the planet?

Let me run through the flaws in the argument about AGW, and why you should be a skeptic, too.

1. CO2 keeps the earth warmer than it would be without it.
We don't actually know this. All the climate change models are built on this theory, and CO2 levels are indeed twice what they were a century ago, which if the theory was right, would mean that global warming would occur. But the "empirical evidence" of which you speak is flimsy at best.

2. Global warming is occurring.
This remains up in the air. We had a "global warming pause" for eighteen years, which none of the climate models can explain, and none of the theories to account for it have proven accurate, like that the oceans have been absorbing some of the heat.

3. CO2 levels are caused by industry.
Actually, the CO2 levels are caused by the deforestation of the rain forest in the Amazon. Industrial pollution has actually gotten much better in the West in the last 50 years, while industrial pollution from Brazil, India, and China have gotten worse. But the real difference has been CO2 uptake. 100 years ago, the ocean plankton took up 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the Amazon rain forest took up another 50%. Now the rain forest has been decimated and CO2 levels have been rising dramatically as a result.

4. We need to do something.
There's zero evidence for this at all. Despite all the gloom and doom, there's no real evidence that a slightly warmer planet wouldn't be good for most people other than a few low-level islands in the Pacific.

5. We need to do something drastic.
There's even less than zero evidence for this.

6. We can do something.
There's not much evidence of this. The Paris Climate Control Agreement would have caused a drastic decrease in the economic well-being of the West and a severe reduction in the quality of life for a lot of people, for a net effect of a decrease in the increase of future temperatures of 0.1°C. Not a decrease, mind you, a decrease in the future increase. For the cost, the benefit wasn't at all worth it. What we could do that would absolutely work would be to replant the Amazon rain forest, but there's zero evidence that Brazil is going to cooperate with that plan. I understand there's at least one person working in that direction, but he's got an uphill battle, to say the least.

7. We should accept what scientists say.
Scientists not only get things wrong all the time, they change their minds all the time, too. Back in the 1970s, pollution was going to cause a new ice age. Didn't happen. Now, pollution is going to fry the planet. Forgive me if I remain skeptical. And then take a look at the nutritional field. Every week, it seems, they change their mind about what's good for you and what's bad for you. Last week, milk was good for you and coffee was bad for you. This week, coffee is good and milk is bad. A few years ago, a high fat diet was good for you. Now a low fat diet is good for you. We have seven and a half billion people on the planet that we can use for test subjects to determine what's good for us and what's bad for us, and we can't even do that. We have exactly ONE planet to determine what's good for it and what's bad for it, what makes you think we can figure that out? Statistically speaking, a sample size of ONE is essentially useless.

8. We should accept what statisticians say.
If you've taken statistics, you know that you shouldn't accept anything under an 80% confidence interval, and 90% is better. The best statistical data on global warming came in at 50%, and the rest were worse than that, meaning they were no better, and usually worse, than flipping a coin.

9. We should accept what the computer models say.
Garbage in, garbage out.

LOL. The Sahara has been a desert for seven million years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/sahara-millions-years-older-thought-180952735/

The first one. We don't actually know that CO2 causes the planet to heat up. All the models are built on that basis, but it's an assumption. Millions of years ago when the planet was much hotter, it wasn't carbon dioxide levels that were much higher, it was oxygen levels. Also, your subject/verb agreement, "Which one is wrong?"

 

Number 8 certainly indicates that you have no idea about statistics which invalidates the entire rest of your post.

 

OK, so you have the ability to attack the poster. What skills have you on statistics? What was his flaw?

 

Democrats do not believe that all climate changes that have ever happened to the planet was done by humans. They agree with the majority of the climate scientists and the rest of the world in their conclusion that the main driver in this recent climate change is a strengthening greenhouse gas layer, and the main driver of this strengthening layer is human activity.

 

Well first his 80% confidance interval which actually is generally accepted as three sigma or approximately 95%. And then there is 50% claim which He will be unable to support. People like that just make themselves look stupid when they pretend knowledge they do not posess.

 

How pointless is this post? Let me count the ways:

1. Unsubstantiated claim. Explain the error or don't bother claiming it is an error.
2. Logical fallacy, the invalidation of one argument does not affect the validity of the others. There's no chain of logic here, where one part is dependent on the previous part for support.
3. Hand-waving. You're saying you have no answer to the other eight arguments and so you must latch on to one you think is wrong and use that to dismiss the rest.

 

Mehehehe. You're wrong about that.

"There's a 50 percent chance that temperatures will rise 4 degrees Celsius under a business-as-usual scenario"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/

There it is in black and white. A completely useless bit of statistical data used as a scare tactic.

 

I just did see above. You know nothing about statistics. And you cannot substantiate your 50% claim. And i didn't say that proving one claim invalidates all your claims, i said it invalidates you.

 

Sorry but that wasn't his claim. Try again. And while you are at it learn the difference between probability and confidance levels.

 

Were I to be told by you to salt your steak, and I dropped but one grain of salt on it, I don't think you would accept that I salted your steak.

No, they believe this planet had vast changes in climate and man was not here to cause it. So why have they changed their minds?

Why since when have the majority of scientists become climate experts?

Why do climate experts not agree with the rest of them?

https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/20/reviewing-the-ccsr-discussion-thread/

 

Where are your academic references and citations to validate these claims? Your one link does not validate or support any of the posted hypothesis

 

Laogical fallacy 101

Strawman argument

 

Bacteria not only changed the climate of the planet in the past they have changed the very composition of the atmosphere but many believe that burning 93 million barrels of oil p r day will not affect the atmosphere

 

I can post pictures too!



If you want it in graphic form

 

Human activity CO2 levels have risen from 280 PPM to 400 PPM. The greenhouse layer is a very important part of the climate system is definitely not one grain of salt on a steak. Generally food analogies don't work in science.

What they say is in the past the planet was entirely responsible for climate change because humans didn't have the technology to do so. Now we are capable of impacting climate along-side nature and most of the warming recently has come from human activity due to the tens of billions of tons of CO2 gas we are pumping into the greenhouse layer every year over the past few decades.

According to multiple surveys 90-99% of climate scientists agree that most of the recent warming is due to human activity with most surveys pointing to about 97%.

 

When I want to read taunts, insults and anger, I know where to turn.

 

Ad hominem argument. Dismissing me doesn't address the substance of my arguments, either. Would you like to throw in a post hoc ergo prompter hoc or reductio absurdum error for good measure?

 

While we have measured the gains to CO2, what we are not able to measure is the contribution by humans nor which humans raised levels. Some feel industry, some feel trees lost and some suspect other issues. I used salt to show how tiny CO2 actually is. And also have shown where carbon dioxide is. Is it at cities or in the desert or the oceans?

I know those arguments well. Are you aware of where the test lab that is used to confirm those claims?

When the starting point is that man did it, it's kind of hard to veer off where a solution may happen. Take men in the Amazon, we know of tree losses, but correcting them really is extremely difficult to solve.

I am not one bit interested in the "collective claims." A collection of turtles may claim water is not good yet I don't accept that. Imagine your menu depended on chefs voting on the meal.

Please, this is not smart alec talk. I am sincere. I appreciate your thoughts.

 

I would also like to address Distaff and others who are reasonable people.

So, now that I am informed, humans are in charge of climate, what is your sales pitch to me to get me involved in controlling climate globally?

 

It is well known that humans are the reason CO2 levels are rising. Humans produce about 30 gigatons of CO2 and the yearly CO2 surplus is 15 gigatons so it makes sense that we are the cause of this increase.
Also when humans started emitting all this CO2 that is when CO2 levels spiked to unprecedented levels:

As of now it has passed 410 ppm when in in the figure it was 390 ppm. It is estimated to pass 800 ppm by the end of the century.


We know the types of CO2 that are commonly produced by humans and not surprisingly there is more and more of this CO2 in the atmosphere. This has been extensively studied and it has been confirmed that the increase of CO2 is from human origin.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

CO2 isn't tiny. Its an important part of the greenhouse effect and significantly increasing CO2 will raise global temperature by several degrees. The total greenhouse effect warms the planet by about 60 degrees and several degrees of that is CO2 so it makes sense that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures by several degrees.

We find CO2 in oceans, in the ground, and in the air. Humans are taking the CO2 that was slowly put in the ground over billions of years and putting it into the air in a space of just a few decades. The warming caused from this is causing oceans to release the CO2 in them into the air along with water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which will warm the planet even more. CO2 tends to be more concentrated around the cities producing it but since it is a gas it gets blown around the whole planet.

Experts in a field should be taken far more seriously than a bunch of turtles. Are you looking for studies on the greenhouse effect of CO2 and trapping heat? Here is a basic lab test on this.

 

The climate is in a delicate balance, it is easy to knock it out of balance but we are not even close to knowing how to get it in balance.

 

Actually, when YOU write something, it is your duty to ensure we all comprehend. In college, the English teacher informed us all, "your duty to a college professor is to talk to him like one, to the hill billy, also talk to him so he understands. It was awesome to listen to a teacher make it that clear. So clear, I have never forgot his admonishment.

I keyed off your own comments and asked you a question. Which you simply ignored. I wish to talk to you. In your mind, are you the hill billy or the professor?

 

I noticed he said that CO2 trapped heat. So why does it not become a barrier to heat from the Sun?

I will wish to hear your solution and why you accept that you and I control climate.

 

So, we are helpless since we do not know how to control climate.

 

We know that C02 causes global warming (just look at Venus), what difference how much is too much. We are pumping an unprecedented amount of C02 into the atmosphere. Do we really want to take the chance that it is going cause a disruption of our very way of life? Is that logical?

You guys are freakin' hypocrites. The reason why there is no reforestation, land management or C02 extraction is that you guys are always stopping it.

I can tell you what we do know. The Earth is not intelligent. We are not living on Ego (see GotG V2).

Do we want to take that chance that we may be destroying our environment? Beside, we are currently relying on a finite resource to power our entire civilization. One day, we will run out. Why not take the steps now before we reach that point, to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels? Where is the harm?