how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

Yeabut, it's not concrete evidence until you crash. You could be fine doing nothing for awhile.

Try and learn the difference between empirical evidence and corelation. Squeaking breaks is empirical evidence that something is going on with my brakes.

A slowing of my reaction time might result in using more distance to stop. Taking a longer stopping distance as evidence that my brakes are bad is using corelation as if it were empirical evidence. I could replace my entire brake system based on that evidence and never even come close to the actual reason that I am taking more distance to stop.

Your so called evidence is nothing more than corelation. It isn't empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.

Again, you suck at analogy.

 

[itfitzme]

Now were just watching for the brakes to fail. *Or do we think that the squeeling stopped because the brakes just got better by themselves?

What do you need, a dead horse on your lawn?

Still don't know what empirical evidence is do you> You are showing correlation, not empirical evidence that man is causing the climate to change.

How do you know I am a person? Maybe I am a dog. Maybe I am a computer. Maybe I am a Martian.

How do you know that you need to breath. Maybe if you stopped breathingong enough, you would discover it isn't actually necessary. You should do that...get a plastic bag...

Hmmmm. That causal vs correlation and inference thing sure is a quandry.

Isn't it amazing, the things you can think of when you get stoned. Poooshhhh! It's like....mind blowing.

 

[deltex1]

Read this


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/06/05/inority-view-n1611914


Understanding Liberals and Progressives - Walter E. Williams - Page 2

 

[mamooth]

Why would anyone waste time reading cult propaganda from TownHall?

If the cultists want to argue their points, they need to summarize them here, instead of just crying "You all must read my cult's website!".

 

[itfitzme]

Read this


Understanding Liberals and Progressives - Walter E. Williams - Page 1


Understanding Liberals and Progressives - Walter E. Williams - Page 2

"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

"That represents the values of some progressives"

Wow, you figured it out...

Shhh.... Don't tell 'em. They might figure out that drinking DDT is better than Viagra. It doubles sperm count and you can go for days.

Waaa haaaa haaaaa

 

[itfitzme]

1/50 degF/CO2ppm

 

[westwall]

1/50 degF/CO2ppm

That's a linear scale. CO2 operates on a logarithmic scale. You really don't know anything do you....

 

[itfitzme]

1/50 degF/CO2ppm

That's a linear scale. CO2 operates on a logarithmic scale. You really don't know anything do you....

I was refering to your IQ.

1/50 degF/CO2ppm is hot air.

 

[westwall]

1/50 degF/CO2ppm

That's a linear scale. CO2 operates on a logarithmic scale. You really don't know anything do you....

I was refering to your IQ.

1/50 degF/CO2ppm is hot air.

Pretty amusing coming from a robot with no IQ.

 

[itfitzme]

That's a linear scale. *CO2 operates on a logarithmic scale. *You really don't know anything do you....

I was refering to your IQ.

1/50 degF/CO2ppm is hot air.

Pretty amusing coming from a robot with no IQ.

You're what, like 12?

So you don't actually understand how I even got 1/50 or what a logarithmic scale is, do you?

I'll give you a clue... laughing at yourself doesn't make you funny.

 

[itfitzme]

A better fit

.00922 (deg_c/CO2_ppm)

 

[westwall]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

 

[IanC]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Its kinda scary that these guys don't have a clue but think that they should be the ones telling everyone else what is supposedly going on.

and anytime you ask them to think about something, they refuse because they consider actually thinking for yourself to be a denialist cult trick that could only lead to trouble.

 

[PMZ]

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski.
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates.
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision.
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team.

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President.

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution.

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace.

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future.

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste.

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.

 

[PMZ]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Wouldn't you expect that there be evidence of that?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Its kinda scary that these guys don't have a clue but think that they should be the ones telling everyone else what is supposedly going on.

and anytime you ask them to think about something, they refuse because they consider actually thinking for yourself to be a denialist cult trick that could only lead to trouble.

Everybody is allowed their own stupidity. Even though it is obvious they don't understand them, and probably haven't even read them, they are allowed to believe that those scientific looking cuts and pastes from various websites make them look smart. I think everybody else pretty well has the quintuplets pegged for what they are. I wouldn't even criticize them at all if they were making any effort to understand and debate the cncepts. But they aren't. They are just repeating the same tired AGW religious doctrines over and over. Perhaps hoping that a lie repeated often enough really can become the truth.

But that is their right.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling me how I am supposed to toe the line, believe what they believe, and practice their religion. And how it is right that the government can force me to do that.

And to protest that loudly and clearly and fight back as best that I can is my right.

 

[PMZ]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Its kinda scary that these guys don't have a clue but think that they should be the ones telling everyone else what is supposedly going on.

and anytime you ask them to think about something, they refuse because they consider actually thinking for yourself to be a denialist cult trick that could only lead to trouble.

Everybody is allowed their own stupidity. Even though it is obvious they don't understand them, and probably haven't even read them, they are allowed to believe that those scientific looking cuts and pastes from various websites make them look smart. I think everybody else pretty well has the quintuplets pegged for what they are. I wouldn't even criticize them at all if they were making any effort to understand and debate the cncepts. But they aren't. They are just repeating the same tired AGW religious doctrines over and over. Perhaps hoping that a lie repeated often enough really can become the truth.

But that is their right.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling me how I am supposed to toe the line, believe what they believe, and practice their religion. And how it is right that the government can force me to do that.

And to protest that loudly and clearly and fight back as best that I can is my right.

We all have lots of rights and each one carries with it some responsibilities as well.

You have a right to whine about anything you want to.

But, the free will of others gets you a declining audience unless your whining has some purpose other than self serving.

So, most people choose to understand any situation that causes them to whine, and work to make it constructive. That is, leading to some place that is better for not only themselves, but others.

"Understand" is a contextual sort of word, meaning different things in different uses, but it's most clear in the area of science. In fact there is an entire sub-topic on how to communicate levels of certainty about any particular understanding of realities within the physical universe. Of course in the context of politics, "understand" has a much less precise meaning.

Thus AGW has been studied long and hard by the relative handful of folks educated and experienced in the fields that contribute to the scientific understanding of it, and declared to be highly certain by all but a tiny fraction of them. Slightly less certain are the dynamics of it, and even slightly less certain in terms of mathematical modeling of it, are the consequences to our civilization of it.

Based on that level of certainty and risk, a significant portion of available resources are now being invested in determining the least cost path that gets us through the consequences of AGW and to the place where energy in sufficient quantities to satisfy projected future demand can be reliably and safely and sustainably provided.

Given all of that background, I'm trying to understand why you might think that "your whining has some purpose other than self serving"?

As you don't seem to be part of the science or engineering or business or investment or planning or, really, any part of the problem or solution at all, what do you expect to accomplish with your whining? Is there any purpose to it?

 

[itfitzme]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

 

[gslack]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

 

[itfitzme]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

So you've got nothing. Is it the term regression? Least squares? Data?

Is that axiom number 2? The "crapped out of your butt" axiom? You've got a bit of a fixation with butts. Potty training didn't go so well, eh?