MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Mac1958]

Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​

That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".

So, is that so? Or shall we weigh the above against the "other side's" claim that AGW ain't happening, that if it happens it ain't a problem because humans like it warm, and even if humans don't like it that warm, there's nothing we can do about it, and thinking about it is pointless anyway?

Since you declare the wingers communicative failures, you can at least demonstrate that you are the one to build bridges.

Oh yes, absolutely!
.

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?

Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?

Yes, absolutely!
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?

Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?

Yes, absolutely!
.

Good. Let’s move on.

 

[Oddball]

Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​

That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".

So, is that so? Or shall we weigh the above against the "other side's" claim that AGW ain't happening, that if it happens it ain't a problem because humans like it warm, and even if humans don't like it that warm, there's nothing we can do about it, and thinking about it is pointless anyway?

Since you declare the wingers communicative failures, you can at least demonstrate that you are the one to build bridges.

Oooooo....Prop players within The State say that they need more money and power!....Now there's something we don't see every day!

 

[Elton]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

That's funny. If the "science were settled" they shouldn't have any problem arguing facts with a denier. The fact that they aren't brave enough to do so tells me the science is far from settled. What you have just described, and endorsed, is propaganda pure and simple. I thought you were supposed to be able to think critically. People who can think critically aren't afraid of someone with an alternate position.

There are hundreds of threads debating the science. Debating the science is no more than noise now. Time to get to work on finding and debating solutions.

All I see are opinion pieces. I see no science. I am not a scientist, but I have a good grounding in how science works, and the one thing I constantly see from climatologists is a abandonment of the scientific method. That is troubling to me. It should be troubling to you too.

 

[Olde Europe]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​

Oh yes, absolutely!
.

How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?

 

[Darkwind]

Chuck Todd is an imbecile. It's settled science.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You greenies are the ones claiming that the world is in danger, now when called on to tell what sacrifices you have done, you get testy.

What that other poster said is that if one drives a car, one cannot claim to be concerned about green issues. That is what is ridiculous. I do drive a hybrid, will be buying a plugin and purposefully rented an office by my home I walk back and forth to each and every day.

If the problem is half as great as you libs claim, your steps are not nearly enough. And when/if you ever succeed in making your agenda national policy, far greater hardships will be forced on you and the rest of US.


If you are not prepared for those sacrifices, you should reconsider your support of policies that will lead to them.

You are deflecting. You mention hardship. Once again you miss the point. There will be hardship one way or another. Pay now or pay later. We can make changes on our own terms or have them forced upon us. That is all I am saying. An ostrich has never been saved from a predator by putting his head in a hole.

The "solutions" that you want us to pay for today, will not actually do anything.


We will pay now, for nothing.

I disagree. Environmental solutions do work and have worked in the past. I welcome the debate on climate change solutions. I want the ones that work. That is why cap and trade is a good start. It has a track record that worked.

Nothing will work, the climate will change regardless



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still no argument or evidence, huh?

Right...no argument and evidence....just a magical, overwhelming scientific consensus, based on nothing but the urge to fool trailer park creatures like you...

No data

 

[cnm]

scientific consensus. .

Two words that are mutually exclusive....Science isn't up for a vote....Prove your hypothesis or STFU.

Some disconnected phrases that show you know nothing about science. Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Consensus is obtained when it's generally agreed the evidence presented supports the explanation given.

 

[cnm]

And all we've heard from the warmers are models that have never ever been predictive,

Yeah? Yet observed temperatures are within predicted range.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[cnm]

Here's a solution: prove your "science", positively quantify it, repeat it for all to see, show your static control model, and disprove all other possible counter-explanations.

Again, science does evidence, not proof. All you are doing is showing you know nothing of the scientific method.

 

[cnm]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?

Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?

Yes, absolutely!
.

Good. Let’s move on.

Solutions now...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​

That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".

So, is that so? Or shall we weigh the above against the "other side's" claim that AGW ain't happening, that if it happens it ain't a problem because humans like it warm, and even if humans don't like it that warm, there's nothing we can do about it, and thinking about it is pointless anyway?

Since you declare the wingers communicative failures, you can at least demonstrate that you are the one to build bridges.

Uhm the US military also thinks space aliens are a threat also


.

 

[cnm]

The second panel shows the AR5 assessment for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period. The HadCRUT4.6 observations are shown in black with their 5-95% uncertainty. Several other observational datasets are shown in blue. The light grey shading shows the CMIP5 5-95% range for historical (pre-2005) & all future forcing pathways (RCPs, post-2005); the grey lines show the min-max range. The dark grey shading shows the projections using a 2006-2012 reference period. The red hatching shows the IPCC AR5 indicative likely (>66%) range for the 2016-2035 period.

The observations for 2016-7 fall near, or just above, the top of the ‘likely’ range depending on the dataset. 2016 was warmed slightly by the El Nino event in the Pacific. The years 2015-2017 were all more than 1°C above a 1850-1900 (pseudo-pre-industrial) baseline.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book​

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​

Oh yes, absolutely!
.

How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?

Whatever way you think is best!
.

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?

Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?

Yes, absolutely!
.

Good. Let’s move on.

Yes, absolutely!
.

 

[cnm]

I bet Bear finds the fact I've tech'd in labs measuring environmental impacts the funniest thing of all. Even funnier than his own complete and invincible ignorance of the science on which he bloviates.

Which is pretty funny, given.

 

[cnm]

So, an attempt at a solution by NZ, of which I approve, is the halting of fossil fuel exploration and survey permits. Way to go, Jacinda.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I bet Bear finds the fact I've tech'd in labs measuring environmental impacts the funniest thing of all. Even funnier than his own complete and invincible ignorance of the science on which he bloviates.

Which is pretty funny, given.

No data


.