Global climate debate-the facts

False.

Probably. Just not very much compared to the sun.

- - - Updated - - -

After appropriate alteration of the data...

 

Oh, please. "Regulations?" Written by and for the oil industry and now, with the new regulator, to get worse.

 

I don't respond to inline quotes. The method is a dishonest way of taking quotes out of context.

 

Obama was in the pocket of BIG OIL ?? That might explain his war on coal.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you respond to questions ??

 

To some degree, they all are.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...3/14/exxon-chevron-bp-greased-obamas-campaign

and

Yes I respond. When the questions are not couched in inline quotes.

 

Corporations donate to both parties. Nothing new there. And where is the proof that Obama was influenced to write regulations or take executive action in favor of BIG OIL. That was certainly not the case in the weeks before he left office.

Good - you do answer questions:

What is your definition of significant ?? It has been stated in this thread that human CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming. What percentage of global warming is the result of human CO2 emissions based on science ??

What is your fact based opinion on the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? What are the benefits of global warming ?? Are there economic benefits to a longer growing season, more arable land, and higher plant growth rates ?? Are there economic benefits to lower mortality from cold ?? Are there economic benefits from more irrigation water ?? What is the cross over temperature increase where costs exceed benefits ??

 

Significant? I consider that 35% of all of the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since 1750 is from humans to be significant.
I consider that scientists have identified that this pollution is a contributor to global warming is significant.

Now your second set of ramblings.

There is no consensus on "climate sensitivity" to CO2. This is impacted by many more factors that just the level of CO2.
Benefits of global warming? None. Any perceived short term benefit will be overwhelmed by the damage.

Have you seen a recent explosion in arable land? Or,more likely, have you seen long droughts and a lack of snow cover causing less land to be arable? I will ask every state west of the Mississippi whether they have more or less irrigation water available. I will ask India and Brazil about their droughts. I will ask the Inuit whether warming has improved their lives.

Mortality from cold? As opposed to heat? Drought?
You've provided no information indicating "more irrigating water. Droughts around the world as well as loss of snow cover seem to belie your claim.
Costs for what? What benefits?

Consider the cost of US military expenditures protecting oil assets around the world
Consider the cost of pollution in terms of health and health care
Consider the environmental costs of mining and extraction activities
Consider the long term costs when sea levels rise to threatening levels

 

Item 1 above is EXACTLY why I don't respond to inline quotes.

 

Sadly this is further confirmation of the closed minds of alarmists. ^^

 

Cult answer on display

 

Please. Sit there with your fingers in your ears and oil company tape over your eyes and talk of "closed minds."

Over the long term, there is no action in reducing the human impact on climate change that is not beneficial.
Over the long term, there is no INACTION on reducing the human impact on climate change that is beneficial.

Your refusal to believe in science, the overwhelming body of science, serves only one master.

 

Yes, the cult of science, fact, and truth. As opposed to the

There's no warming
this I know
For Exxon tells me so...

Flat Earth is the correct generalization of someone who denies science and holds to dogma.

 

Dogma is exactly what the cult spouts as it denies all dissenting climate scientist and says they are Exxon stooges. Just keep digging , here's another shovel . This is fun.

 

Gee. That's exactly what a flat-earther would say...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

Thanks for reinforcing my point. True believers refuse to challenge their beliefs.

 

Prior to the science, which your masters had access to 40 years ago, I had no opinion.

Prior to your masters telling you your opinion, you had no opinion.

You serve your masters. I serve me.

 

Your avatar says it all, you are religion and spirituality based. Nothing wrong with that but it often conflicts with science and tends to make true believers make science into religion. My avatar shows I am about politics which is fitting because this is a political forum and my view of AGW is it is based on a combination of politics and religion. On the world leaders end it's politics as in getting even with America. Among the populace it's religion as in oh me oh my the end is near. Neither way is science though. Science is Judith Curry

 

Forty years ago the fear was global cooling (and CO2 concentration was increasing at the same rate it is today).

If you won't do the homework suggested by my questions there is nothing I can do about it.

 

If you think the avatar is based at all on religion you are sorely mistaken and badly educated.

Rather than trying to attribute "motive" try understanding the science.

There is nothing wrong with doubting. But, when you say "there is no global warming," "CO2 in the atmosphere has no impact on global warming," "Human activity has no impact on CO2 levels," "global warming is a liberal conspiracy," and beyond...then you are not doubting, you are preaching.

I do not claim to know what specific level of CO2 will kill us all. I do know that, at some level, CO2 in the atmosphere will render this planet uninhabitable by humans.

Is this a question you want to answer empirically?

All of the actions to combat global warming will have other, net positive, effects that go beyond climate change. Reducing health costs of pollution, reducing environmental costs of mining and drilling, reducing our military outlays protecting oil fields, reducing total energy costs, reducing the US as a target for terrorism...

The net negative impact of actions to combat global warming are impactful on only one sector...The energy industry as it exists today. The same people who've spent 40 years lying to you. The same people who used the same techniques and advisors the tobacco industry used for 40 years to deny the health effects of tobacco.

Forget the science for a moment. Pursuing "clean" technologies will save us hundreds of billions annually in defense costs, health care costs, and environmental costs. The energy sector is the "whip and buggy" makers screaming about the evils of the horseless carriage.

 

This entire debate is irrelevant in the long run. If deniers are correct everything will be fine,

It the opposite is true there is literally nothing anyone can do to about it.

 

Never said those things and in a way we agree when you admit that you don't know what specific level of C02 is really harmful. Most if not all of us so called deniers think there is indeed some impact on climate of our C02 but we see it as a minor player in the big picture that is overwhelmed and negated by naturally occurring phenomenon. Proof of this is all the scrambling by many AGW true believers to explain the missing heat they predicted by finding exactly that, natural! Phenomenon. As far as clean energy and
Cleaning the environment in general I'm all for it and think this obsession with C02 takes your eye off the ball. Let's work together on real pollution and not be distracted by the latest end of world fad to roll down the pike. By the way if your avatar isn't religion-spiritualism based then what is it?

 

Great job on these answers. You asked a ton of questions back at AFM (After he chided you on not answering his loaded ones). Notice that he will answer none of them. He will wave his hands and tell you that if you were interested you would answer them yourself.

 

Do you have a citation for this? Because it's been shown over and over again to be untrue.

 

So, unlike some, I don't "doubt" there is global warming. Obviously, there isn't a mile of ice anymore, covering NYC. Just as obviously, the population of man at the time of it's abatement doesn't support a CO2 driven causality of it's absence. Thus, it begs the question of what in fact actually did cause this glaciation to abate. Somewhere around the mid 1300s, we experienced a slight hint of what future glaciation might look like. It caused chaos. And while the levels of CO2 might provide some fractional impact on the heat blanket that we enjoy, it also is highly unlikely that it was a causal factor.

As you say, you are unware at what level CO2 concentration will kill us all. I would ask why? It's available content on the internet, let's just suggest that if CO2 were to approach 10% of the overall atmosphere, then, perhaps it would become lethal to human existence. So, to put that into perspective, currently, we are at something like 300 ppm. To get to 10% that would have to increase to 10000 ppm. Historically, we know that this concentration level has occurred. How it was caused, however, is speculative.

So, lacking a functional scientific explanation for the likelihood increasing the concentration to a lethal level seems gratuitous at best.

The conversation then swerves radically away from the scientific to the social and radical agenda of the author. "All actions to combat global warming" isn't a scientific conversation, it's a policy conversation. Likely, the author hasn't then also considered the dangers of global cooling as a result of combating warming. Folks freezing to death, crop decimation, starvation and water shortages don't seem to matter. Likely, none of these would improve the cost of providing health care, the cost of pollution as needed artificial heat producing technologies would be needed to warm the cold... nor would we inherently reduce the environmental costs of mining or drilling as likely the cloudy sky would remove our solar potentials across vast areas, etc.

The author seems willing to inflict catastrophic economic and social conflict to the rest of us, without reservation.

 

Real pollution like what? Mercury, CO, benzine, particulate matter, and smog?