Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

so you can't see the similarities, I am not surprised. Often people cannot extract the tactic from the subject. I did not claim that all climate denialists use these tactics, I claimed that many do.

As for human activity creating massive changes in the atmosphere. Yes I'd classify that as a negative unless the purpose of that activity is remedial.

As for morality, living generations are not the owners of our biosphere, we are its guardians and are obligated to secure it our best abilities and knowledge for future generations to flourish.

And yes, I would put the welfare of human civilization over the welfare of any or all citizens as necessity dictates.

 

that is simply not true, considering there is quite a bit of that kind of research being conducted. The government does not fully fund current climactic research, but governments do fund to the tune of billions because like it or not, climate change is a direct existential threat to our civilization.

 

Why don't you spell out the similarities between the "climate denialists" as you call them and the "holocaust deniers". There are very few who do not agree that human CO2 emissions have an effect on raising global average temperature. Human activity is not causing a "massive" change in the atmosphere. The IPCC A1B CO2 scenario shows a doubling of CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm in the 21st century. That will result in a 1 deg C increase in global average temperature which is net beneficial to the human race.

And if many humans were to die for no measurable effect on the global average temperature by your statement you are OK with that ?? If you advocate policies which will result in the loss of human life then it should be a requirement that you understand the climate sensitivity of CO2 based on real world data and the benefits of global warming.

 

Sure thing ...

First you have to understand the difference between 'skepticism' and 'denial'. Skepticism is the process of considering the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. Denial, on the other hand, first assumes a conclusion and then rejects any evidence which conflicts with the belief.

These two can look very similar. But a good way to tell them apart is by looking for these characteristics of denial.

- Fake Experts
- Logical Fallacies
- Impossible Expectations (The idea of highlighting any uncertainty and implying that that small uncertainty somehow invalidates the entire theory)
- Cherry Picking
- Conspiracy Theories

Both AGW deniers and holocaust deniers display these same 5 characteristics.

 

And I was skeptical of the hogwash that the climate alarmists were putting out, did my homework, used my engineering education and experience, and have concluded that human CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is 1 deg C, the net effects of global warming up to 3 deg C is beneficial, and that it will take over 200 years for the temperature to increase those 3 deg C.

Your answer clearly indicates that you have not engaged in critical thinking on the subject of global warming. Do you have any specific examples of these similarities which you have listed ??

 

My answer has zero to do with the subject of global warming. Please explain how it "clearly indicates" that I have "not engaged in critical thinking on the subject of global warming."

 

"Climate Change" is the new global warming. Have you done your homework on the issue ?? It is clear that you have not.

 

That does not answer my question

 

Only you can answer the question. What steps have you taken to understand climate change with regard to the data based conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C and that there are net benefits to global warming in the next 200 years ??

 

This also does not answer the direct question I asked you.

 

And what happened during the previous eight Inter-Glacial Periods?

Seeing how the Greenland Ice Sheet nearly melted completely during the prior Inter-Glacial Period, what conclusion can you draw?

 

None. I would never try to draw a conclusion based on a single piece of evidence. You kinda have the process mixed up here.

I could be skeptical of the claim that the Greenland ice sheet melted during the last inter-glacial (I'm not. But just for the sake of discussion). If I were skeptical of that claim, I would have to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

If I then accepted the evidence and the subsequent claim that the ice sheet nearly melted (I do) ... Then I could from there ask the question "Why did that happen?". Once I ask that question I can then come up with hypotheses to attempt to answer that question. Those further hypotheses can either be falsified by further data, or not, but any conclusions will be based on that further data.

I hope that's clear.

 

Again, its not an argument about climate change, its about the rate of change that can be attributed to the massive quantities of atmospheric pollutants our civilization produces.

that it was hot.

 

Another alarmist with closed mind who is not interested. Tens shocked.

 

This also does not answer the question. I thought you were an engineer. Do you need me to repeat it? Or is 'Ignore it' your preferred strategy here?

 

And again you can answer the question to your own satisfaction - all that is needed is curiosity and initiative. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

LOL How am I supposed to answer the question of: "Please explain how it "clearly indicates" that I have "not engaged in critical thinking on the subject of global warming." -- It would be entirely your explanation.

You are clearly no engineer.

 

You don't know the rate of change.

Hotter than present. When, and if, the average global temperature increases 10.4°F the only factual statement you can make is that it is as warm as it was during the prior Inter-Glacial Period.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you need to read the studies regarding the age of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

 

Just because it was warmer then does not mean the fact that it is getting warmer now is not caused by CO2. That argument says that because people got lung cancer before tobacco then tobacco can not be causing lung cancer now.

 

I think you misunderstand my hypothetical ... please re-read it. I am making no statement of belief or fact. Merely proposing a hypothetical to explain the 'facts => conclusion' relationship.

 

I have my name on 17 technical patents and degrees in Chemical and Mechanical Engineering. It take homework and critical thinking to understand both engineering and climate science. Also curiosity and initiative.

You have the ability to apply these characteristics to the subject of global warming and understand what the data indicates as the dependency of global average temperature with CO2 and the benefits of global warming. This is up to you - I can't do your homework for you.

 

You definitely have no such thing. Any engineer would understand the question asked. Do I need to repeat it?

 

As the concentration of CO2 has steadily increased the global average temperature has increased, decreased, and stayed the same. There is no functional (look that up please) relationship between global average temperature and CO2 concentration.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone with initiative would answer for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the truth could be easily discerned by the application of initiative driven by curiosity. Why live in the land of the hypothetical ??

 

Any engineer would answer the question

This, not unlike most of your responses, makes little sense.

 

There is no helping a closed mind. Only that mind can open itself.