Climate Change denial vs History

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned due to the fossils being found there, the burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that the burning fossil materials is fueling the warming. So far none of them that I know of has put their careers on the line by stating an absolute YES, burning fossil fuels is causing the latest warming trend. Please spare me the zippty doo da about exact science. We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. If you can't prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

 

It's out there in abundance, basically all economists agree, and very simple logic shows that it would kill jobs. If the work of an employee only adds $8 to an employer's income, making it a crime to pay them less than $15 will result in them being jobless.

Alright fair - I may have read more into some of your statements than was there.

uh... see below in bold. You in one breath say that it is settled science, it isn't a question anymore, settled years ago - and in the next you admit that the degree isn't settled?

Perhaps now you can see why I made those comparisons. Degrees matter.

There was a study put out in 2008 by a couple Germans, I can't remember the name, but they found that roughly only a fifth of scientists believed that humans could significantly curb it.

If you have time, there is a good video on AGW based on evaluations by economists. In it there is a little gem - according to scientists, following the Kyoto Protocol (which is far more stringent than what is followed by any country) would make a country that would be underwater in 96 years w/o action - be underwater in 100. It extends the time they have by 4 years, at the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars (it'd cost 2-3x the amount of foreign aid given by all countries).

1. Jumping ahead on green isn't a recipe for success - the cost far outweigh the benefits. Government subsidies in the green sector have been horridly inefficient, and it took almost no time for foreign companies to beat out even subsidized American companies. The American companies that have been successful - like Tesla - would have been successful w/o government subsidies. Tesla is an amazing car - you don't need to throw government $ at good things to make them good.
2. Green, on the whole, isn't ready yet - why? Because it's simply cost evaluation. It's not cost efficient. However, over time renewable energy will become more efficient (as it already has), meaning it will become cheaper. Simple supply and demand dictates that oil will become more expensive, pretty rapidly (I don't mean in the short term, but in the big picture the price will increase rapidly). As it is, oil is far cheaper now than green energy - w/o government intervention, that will change in our lifetime.
3. The political right would be far less opposed if there was less alarmism and propaganda. Again, like with rape on college campuses, idk why so many feel the need to push propaganda on reality - simply present the facts as they are and people won't be so resistant. I've seen this start to be the new approach for most in academia - the scientists I've seen don't push that kind of propaganda, they generally present it as it is - the political activists on the left push the alarmist propaganda, which is offputting and makes people doubt the whole thing.

I'm not interested in assigning blame - I get why political activists on the left push that (I've already stated why they do), and I get why many people reject that kind of alarmism - I'm interested in correcting those errors so that people can receive accurate information, and move forward with it. I don't care about assigning partisan blame - it seems overly petty.

Yes, there are many things that are blatantly obvious in science. Among them is that adjusting to GW is far more cost-efficient than preventing GW. According to a group of GW scientists, parts of Bangladesh will be underwater in (based on when it was done - the study is from a few years ago) 96 years, and following all of the Kyoto Protocol - which would cost hundreds of billions annually, far more than the globe spends on aid to developing countries - would make it so that it [Bangladesh] would be underwater in 100 years. Spending hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, which could be used to fight aids, starvation, cure cancer, etc. - would give Bangladesh a few more years.

lol no, that's far from accurate. And you're the one who brought up party platforms - if you wish to discard any point about party platforms, then we can just forget this bit.

No, it really isn't. I'm glad that you get my point there, but the real problem with the misinformation - from the alarmism - is that it mostly isn't coming from actual scientists. It's coming from pseudo-scientists and political activists. And the more they push the propaganda, the more skeptical people are of the whole thing.

 

I don't think we're actually too far from agreement, but the way you have thus far talked about these issues has been filled with rank partisanship - for you to suggest that anyone disagreeing with you might just be too partisan is.... I can't remember, but there's a term for this. Something like fighting monsters and becoming one, Nietzche I think - at any rate, I'm not interested in the insertion of petty partisan politics into a factual discussion of science. We've already seen that it produces problems and holds us back - there's no sense in just injecting more and more and expecting a different result.

And again - I don't think we're far from agreement on the factual issues.

 

You said those agencies are being alarmist. I simply pointed out that they HAVE never been alarmist in the past and now are SUDDENLY being accused of it when profits are being threatened. You don't find that just a little bit suspicious?

 

My pleasure: http://www.inquisitr.com/3952822/wh...al-warming-data-to-influence-paris-agreement/

 

You missed the point. The alarmism is based on the models, not observed science. The models continue to deviate from observed science as they project warmer temperatures than are showing up, in fact by 3 times actual warming in the troposphere where warming is supposed to show first.

 

Nope! This would appear to be a reading comprehension deficit on your part. But it's just lack of context.: i.e., you should have read the previous two messages (at least)

 

You want me to prove that what is a negative: that people denying AGW because they hate Al Gore is a negative, or that being uninformed is a negative?

I kinda don't feel like I need to prove either of those statements, though.

 

Here is the actual information

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

 

At the rate the ice caps are melting, how long until they are gone?

 

Right. Snopes. https://decryptedmatrix.com/exposed-snopes-funding-in-question/

 

Al Gore said in 2007 they would be gone by 2014. Then he sold his TV company to a Middle Eastern Oil country and made tens of millions and flies about in big private jets between his various mansions.

Hoax

 

Uh....so what? All that says is you don't know where snopes is funded from. Again ....so what? Do you dispute the claims made in the snopes report?

 

I'm always ask the collectivist drones, ok.... so Earth is warming... so how long till the ice caps are gone? At what "rate" is the warming taking place? and none of them know. They just know it is warming and we're all gunna die soon.

 

Uh....we know exactly the rate of warming. LOL

 

As reknowned physicist Dr. Richard Feynman has said if the experiment doesn't agree with the theory, the theory is wrong. The predictions based on the theory for the last 30 years the whole "global warming" hoax has been promoted have not been confirmed by observation of subsequent events. The polar caps are not free of ice. The Polar bears are more numerous than ever, the Himalayan glaciers haven't melted, coastal cities aren't under water, there are fewer hurricanes, not more. The results don't bear out the theory, so the theory is wrong.

Actually, its a hoax. They can solve global cooling or global warming (your choice, the hoaxters have predicted both) if only you give them all your money and control over your life. Swearsies.

 

Great, how long till the ice caps melt?

 

I have no idea

 

So what is it? At what date will we all spontaneously combust while walking down the sidewalk?

That is unless we give you all our money and control over our lives. By golly THEN you will solve the problem and we can breathe easily.

 

I thought so.

 

Good. Who cares

 

I have no idea. This is the fallacy of unrealistic expectations. If you smoke can you tell me the exact date you will get cancer? See how silly this is?

 

Well, you said you know the rate of warming, so it shouldn't be hard to come up with a rate and a guess of when the ice caps will melt. But evidently it is....

 

Oh we can do that. But it would be an approximation. Much like when you will get cancer from smoking

 

You might not get cancer. But if AWG is real, and CO2 is making Earth warmer, and every year we add x amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, if your "science" was "real", you could easily produce a timeline. Al Gore atleast has the nuts to make a guess... like 2014...