Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7361 - 7380 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
You must've watched a lot of tv in your not-so-distant youth. Your need for immediate gratification reflects your shortened attention span.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 09:45pm PT
First reading assignment is to go to Top Dog (two locations in Berkeley, two in Oakland) and read the stuff posted to the walls....
http://www.topdoghotdogs.com/propergander.html
probably more serious than your YouTube stuff...

Haha--yep I've read plenty of dawg libertarianism tidbits there.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 23, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
Ed, thanks for your well-stated post (worth repeating, as I've done below).

While the deniers will make the most noise over a post such as this, I believe we non-deniers learn magnificently from the items you post.

So fear not, your efforts here are not for waste!

It's too bad that some people, even when they seem curious, are unable to learn. But then again, as one rock star famously sings,
You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

while there are many who persist in stating that there is no anthropogenic source of climate change, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite well understood at this point, there is no scientific controversy.

Increasing the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases the global mean temperature.

Given that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the largest source of CO2 into the atmosphere it isn't a stretch to see that, on top of all the natural variability of climate, there is an anthropogenic component which is significant, and proceeding at a rate that has no historic counterpart.

The subsequent changes to the climate are difficult to predict precisely because there is no guidance from the past, and in such a case we have to decide whether or not to do something, and if we do something, just what to do. These decisions can be based on many things, I'd suggest that science is certainly a part of that decision making process. One can base it on economic factors. Another basis can be political.

But I'd suggest that the physical description of what the consequences of any of these decisions are is well described by the current climate science, and these only get better with time. The arguments on this are over variability that is now small compared to the magnitude of the changes since the late 1800s.

It is not utopian to suggest that we consider the cost of the alteration of the environment and include it in the use of the agent that is altering the environment, what I'd term "fair pricing," and let the "magic" of the "free market" take over. Failure to manage these commons, which include not only the atmosphere but also the "hydrosphere" (we are pumping ancient ground water at a rate far greater than that water is being replenished), and the biosphere, will have predictable consequences.

Denying the scientific basis of these consequences won't change the outcome, except to accelerate those outcomes where no action is taken. See the North Atlantic fisheries as an example (and the global fisheries for that matter).
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 09:46pm PT

But back to topic of climate change... here is a classic problem of managing a common resource, in this case the atmosphere, where all of us dump stuff that is causing climate change and damaging the environment... how would a libertarian solve that problem?

Ron Paul denied that humans are causing it. But for other pollution issues he suggested using nuisance laws.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 23, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
Don't have much to add today but if you CAGW true believers could possibly open your eyeballs there is a couple summaries in the link below. The first exposes the economic fallacy of the "green and CO2 reduction" policy by some noted MIT economists. The second is a review of published science with the conclusion that the Holocene maximum and the Medival warm periods were both much warmer in the Arctic than today.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

Additionally there is growing evidence, and papers in the works, noting the general high northern latitudes cooling trend of the last decade plus.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 23, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
It wasn't that many decades ago that most families had only a single car.
Most americans would personally benefit from driving less and walking more (as would the Chump)
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 23, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Ed, the cat's been out of the bag for quite sometime on the relationship between temps and atmospheric CO2 content-First the temps increase followed by CO2 increase- this has been studied, verified, and published over and over again ad nausem. The fact that we are adding to it by combustion of FF and the temps haven't even reached earlier periods of the holocene ( or as some are calling it now the Anthropocene) is what "the science" should be studying. Instead you guys seek to burden the producing citizenry with additional taxation to support the growing legions of non productive people and then have the gall to claim we are not paying the true costs of our lifestyle and goods. It is breathtaking; the absolute 180 degree reversal of reality you are attempting to foist upon us.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 23, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
Please explain how those in the Poverty level will be able to survive. They won't be able to afford the fuel to get to work nor the food to feed themselves.


We can just throw them in jail where they won't need a car or a job. More economical to ship them jail food and make the guards car pool to minimize emissions.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 23, 2013 - 11:27pm PT
Yeah Chief i agree. The more vocal proponents of the scam must either not have children or have seen to it that they have pursued lifetime government work. The policies they promote will collapse the tent on the rest of us and somehow they erroneously believe they'll will escape the ruination they create. Not gonna happen, their little la la land.

Exactly Ed- the past warmings didn't have anything to do with elevated CO2 levels. The current warming has little to do with increased CO2 content, rather it is a minor positive feedback. Repeated studies have shown that CO2 lags temps anywhere from months to centuries. There are no credible studies convincingly showing CO2 increases precede temp increases. Any idiot(s) can and are determining this.And you are wrong; there were plenty of people around during the holocene maximum 8000 to 4000 b.p., there were plenty of people around during the roman warm period 2000 b.p., there were plenty of people around for the medival warm period 1000 to 700 b.p.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:15am PT
My Norton security bounced your link as being a virus Ed.

Anyway, GST records have there well documented problems,but i assume that on average they mark trends as do proxy records. Why are we cooling now when all the "consensus science" says we should be rocketing upwards with the CO2 levels? Some fundamental mechanisms have yet to be discovered, misunderstood, or underestimated. The sixty four thousand dollar question is; What have we missed?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:31am PT
We are rocketing up.



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:39am PT
Of course Chief! But i continue to hope that some of these guys will have a moment of weakness and admit the truth.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:37am PT


Chef Dough Boy is great at cherry picking

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 24, 2013 - 10:46am PT
Of course Chief! But i continue to hope that some of these guys will have a moment of weakness and admit the truth.


Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

That The Chief has the ability to say that the pro-AWG crowd is ignoring peer-reviewed articles astonishes me, when he at the very same time completely ignores peer-reviewed science. In fact, he boasts about his ability to ignore science, claiming it's just sheep following the heard.

The Chief, rick, your posts only keep proving your ignorance and inability to actually lean anything. And you both seem proud of the fact that you are both closed to learning anything.

The Chief, did it ever occur to you that using the internet is following the sheep? So turn off you computer and prove to us that you indeed are not of the majority.

Jeez, what a fool.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:54am PT
I have a theory. Global Warming is caused by all the the energy that The Chief is wasting trying to convince anyone that the points he's making have any validity.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:25am PT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:42am PT
Well K-Man, Mental Case and others why don't you guys do a simple comparison of the observed climate reality versus the many predictions od CAGW theory.

!. increased and more severe hurricane activity.

2. increased and more severe tornado's.

3. Permanent droughts in the southwest through some of the prairie states.

4. The Arctic ocean was supposed to be ice free by now according to many.

5. Greenlands ice sheets were meant to slide into the sea.

6. Antartica's warming was meant to be amplified.

7. Antartic ice shelfs and continental ice sheets were meant to have slid into the sea and broken up.

8. Snow was already meant to be a thing of the past in parts of Europe, the U.K., and parts of America.

9. Alaskas temps to were meant to have continued upwards unabated, all the permafrost melted and the methane hydrates released.

10. There was meant to be a hotspot in the tropic's upper troposphere.

11. Average global temperatures were meant to increase in close correlation to rising CO2 content.

And on and on and on. None of these things have come to fruition and in most cases exactly the opposite has happened. Any respectable science establishment would have abandoned such a theory long ago after repeated failure of the predictives. But, this isn't respectable science is it?

Well i see that the Master has "spoken" during my own little composition. Unfortunately most of what he had to say was in defense of the many failed predictives. Ed's answer for the overhyped problem continues to be a ruinous tax on the air we use and breath. This is complete b.s. and know body in their right mind mistakes it for anything but government seizure of liberties and wealth for the purpose of complete control of the populace. If global warming was a real problem we could much more easily nullify it by anthropogenic release of reflective aerosols than eliminate the source of atmospheric CO2 which is 97% natural and the result of natural temp increases.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

The bolded part is what Chef Cherry Picker left out.



Be careful out there Chef.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:54am PT
The contrarians are the ones making the poor predictions.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Take a good look around Ed. It is not that the predictives take time to evolve, or build up in fits and starts, it is instead the observed reality is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I suppose you believe they will make a complete 360 degree revolution and conform to the "science" at some unknown date an eon or two in the future, but we can't stop the world on suppositions. It is highly likely we are entering a period of global cooling and along with it erratic weather patterns which might last many decades into the immediate future. Their are many respectable scientists and exhaustive studies pointing in this direction. Why can't you accept such a possibility instead of having almost all your chips on CAGW?
Messages 7361 - 7380 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews