since you are not rebutting any of my points, but needling & trying to provoke me, i can only conclude that you wish to deflect & disrupt the discussion with ad hominem. So i will put you on ignore. Of course, you are free to respond to & ridicule my posts, but i will not see it. Sorry it went this way. I would have been glad to have a bit more polemic discussion, but not here.
What "points". I see unreferenced opinions which, when I rebut them using referenced material that material is ignored
I gave you the reasons why your question isn't answerable. Yes, I suppose there is some chance that the sun is going through a change that will last a long time - of course, I don't see mainline science suggesting that is possible.
It's answerable because it's a personal question. If we went ten years without anything dramatic or unusual happening, would you change your opinion? Twenty years? Or will you always believe in the carbon apocalypse even if it never materializes?
Let's start with some basics and see where you think the scientific method went wrong. Do you consider CO2 a greenhouse gas that allows Earth's atmosphere to retain heat from the sun?
What carbon apocalypse?? How can this be answered when it is a straw man? As to the so called pause - this is coinciding with a lull in solar output - get back to me if temps do not rise and we are at a peak solar flare cycle
You are essentially asking if I will ignore science at some future date. Yet, everything I've said and posted is based on the current best understanding of science. Why do you think I'm going to stop following science? Again, this whole line of discussion hits me as monumentally hypothetical, illogical and pointless. Let's move on to a rational discussion of current trends on earth today.
Why do you think the "pause" disagrees with AGW? Did the "pause" from 1940 to 1970 mean global warming stopped then?
How many times do I have to explain to you the difference between short term variability and long term trends?
You probably won't get what I'm saying here, but what is the difference between faith in science you don't understand yourself and religion? The "pause" wasn't predicted and the models had to be altered after the fact to account for it. The reality is that large numbers of scientists are often wrong, for example, the US government recently reclassified carbohydrate recommendations after decades of saying it should be moderated. So yes, I am asking if you would ever stop following "science" which is to say would you ever stop following what authority figures tell you to believe even though it conflicts with the obvious.
Oops, I meant cholesterol, not carbohydrates. Still, it was a pretty big shift that overturned decades of "settled science" and the people who said that cholesterol was safe were basically treated the same as global warming "deniers." You can't find much about it in the media because they're afraid of what it would say about climate change, but the change to cholesterol recommendations actually represents a massive shift in science and culture.
The only shift in the Cholesterol guidelines was that "The idea we need to limit saturated fat and cholesterol shifted Americans from a well-balanced diet to high-sugar diets, which made people eat more and get fatter." The reality, according to Nissen, is that only 15% of circulating cholesterol in the blood comes from what you eat. The other 85% comes from the liver. "So if you go on a diet," he says, "you're not changing your cholesterol very much." Still, nutritionists are not recommending you go out and binge on cheeseburgers and fries." This is not to say that high cholesterol in the blood is not a serious concern, because it most certainly is. Moreover, even if only 15% percent of circulating cholesterol comes from our food, if we overeat food high in cholesterol, it will have a big impact on our cholesterol levels, particularly our bad cholesterol. What's more, those who have a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol and high triglycerides and a family history of coronary artery disease still need to be vigilant about the foods they eat that contain cholesterol. For people who don't have a family history of heart and artery disease, and are otherwise healthy, it is no longer such a big concern.
You seem to be splitting hairs in an attempt to downplay this huge change in nutritional science. Here's a quote from CNN: It looks as if you're trying to muddy the waters here because you don't want to admit that the "settled science" on this issue was wrong. This is one of the things that turned me off from being an environmentalist, the complete disregard for responsibility. You guys will lie about anything even though it's western city people (generally western liberals) who have the world's largest carbon footprint and they have no intention of changing their lifestyle but they love finding a justification for being mean to other people while engaging in some faux humanitarian circle jerk.
You are mistaken. I have a genetic condition that causes me to have abnormally high cholesterol and high triglycerides, the result of which I had a heart attack at the age of 49 (8 years ago). So I am acutely aware of the cholesterol research. As for the "settled science" controversy, I am happy to report that there is no controversy. The part of climate science that is settled is that the Earth is seeing abnormal warming that has a significant human contribution. The minutia, the details are not all sorted out, but the fact of warming and the human contribution is not at issue. The misinformed opinion of willfully ignorant right wing pundants with an corporate agenda doesn't count for squat.
Take care of yourself. The only thing that is agreed upon in Climate Science (including the skeptics) is the following: Man contributes to warming. It has warmed during the last century. That's about it. Any other claim is just opinion not backed up with any proof other than hypothesis. For instance, 'abnormal warming'. The hypothesis of CO2 warming starts in the 50's but does not account for the same rate of warming recorded before that from the 1900's to the 1940's. CO2 only rose above the average in the 50's and for a short while, temperature matched the rise but that has stopped the end of the last century causing those invested in this meme to scramble to explain what is known as the hiatus. It is now becoming apparent that the main driver of temperature in the Northern Hemisphere are the ocean cycles like the AMO and PDO. The main driver of AMO and PDO temperatures and fluctuations are the sun, wind, and currents. This is much more well known than the hypothesis of the warming hiding in the oceans which technically speaking, is a very weak hypothesis.
It is the old, 'correlation does not imply causation' truth that is one of the tenets of the scientific method. Every scientist (real ones, anyway) knows this snippet, & tries to conduct his research or conclusions with that in mind. THAT is the major flaw in AGW, imo.. they leap to conclusions, when the data is not compelling you to go there. But the AGW promoters use correlation to promote faulty science. They can NOT prove causation, so all they have is correlation, & that is sketchy at best. I am just saddened by the violence done to the scientific method. True science is wonderful, enlightening, mind boggling, & a gift to humanity. But these perverts are twisting it for a political agenda, & blurring the lines between real science & truth by decree.
And you're not an accredited climatologist, I'm willing to bet. I will take the word of 98% of the world's accredited climatologists over some guy ranting on a message board any day
I am NOT making an argument of authority. I am making scientific arguments, with logic, facts, & observable reality. Arguments based on 'experts' opinions are not scientific, they are for religious & political arenas.
So what level would you and your folks be completely happy with? 280 ppm? If it gets below I think 170 ppm, we would all starve to death. So what are you guys happy with? And then HOW are you gonna keep it at that level, given that the co2 level has changed throughout the earth's history? IF co2 goes higher, what is the outcome for life in general? It flourishes. Some people don't understand that higher co2 levels are not doom and gloom. And that it greens up the earth, and one that we have been de-greening for a long time. Co2 is a natural, life sustaining gas. You act like it was cyanide gas.
About this time last year, i started a thread titled, 'The rise of Anti-Science'. I am still amazed at how this trend is going. http://www.politicalforum.com/science/349804-rise-anti-science.html I'm always intrigued by the source of ideology, & how we got to where we are, philosophically. I have noticed a bit of a swing between mysticism & empiricism in cultures. One gets an upper hand, which leaves a vacuum for the other. Then the pendulum swings the other way. At least in the American sphere, i see this phenomenon. Post ww2 we were swinging big time toward empiricism.. science, technology, engineering.. these were almost worshipped by the citizens, & the smart kids were encouraged to go into those fields. But there seemed to be a lack.. a void left by the worship of science, so by the 70s there was a swing toward mysticism, & imo, we are still in that place. Currently, science seems to be suffering a lot of redefinition & violence, as people try to use it for some agenda, rather than it being what it is.. a dispassionate method of discovering & explaining reality. It does not have all the answers, especially in mystical matters, but also in historical analysis. But many people use it to promote an agenda that science has nothing to say about. They try to use the dispassionate nature of truth & the scientific method to correlate to something that has nothing to do with science. IMO, that is what happened with the 'theory' of AGW. At first, the polished look of the theory was very convincing. But as skeptical people began to examine it, holes were found. Then, there was corruption. Hidden agendas were discovered, with major conflicts of interest. Faulty data. Cherry picking. Secretive methods. The 'science' part of the theory began to lose credibility, so to compensate propaganda tactics were employed. Loud, indignant responses come to criticism of any part of the theory. Ridicule & demeaning insults, instead of reasoned debate. How can anyone think this is anything but a political agenda? The lack of scientific rationality is appalling. It is anti-science. The OP in this article is a lifelong devotee to global environmentalism. He does not present a lot of data here, but refutes & exposes the faulty data that is used to promote this agenda. IMO, within a few years, this issue will die down & will be quietly swept under the rug. The pseudo scientists will not bring it up constantly, because it will have been completely discredited even by former proponents. Although it is very flexible, as an ideology, & can morph anything into its model, with creative use of graphs & charts. We have seen this over the last 40 yrs or so. It is a chameleon, that can change its color to fit in any background. Any global disaster can be explained through the filter of 'climate change'. The proof of causality is not there, but the correlation is enough, for those who twist science for an agenda. I don't care what people believe. But i don't care for beliefs being trumpeted as absolute truth, the way the AGW devotees do it. They leave no room for discussion, no room for skepticism, but demand unquestioning allegiance to this 'theory' that has all the earmarks of a cult. Intolerant fanaticism, bullying, 'lying for the cause', & many other unscientific tactics are used, which to me, completely discredits it as a valid scientific theory. It is mandated truth. A return to the dark ages. It is anti-science.
Yes, I do. You do realize that the Little Ice Age ended around 1850, just as human CO2 emissions kicked into high gear thanks to the Industrial Revolution.
I am not concerned with the level of CO2, just the rate at which it is changing. While CO2 has changed significantly throughout Earth's history, it usually changes very slowly, giving plants and animals time to adapt. Every time CO2 has changed as fast as it is changing now there have been mass extinctions. While I have no doubt that life in general would still go on, it is human life and those species which we have become dependent upon that I am most concerned about.
