Why we should listen to the 97%

[Foxfyre]

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

And yet despite a couple of decades of vastly increased wind and solar, restrictions on manufacturing, increased fuel standards on automobiles, and every developed nation reducing its CO2 output, the CO2 levels continue to increase at a steady rate. And you know what? We're all still here. Thriving. Doing fine. In fact, the scientists who aren't paid to support AGW are pretty sure there has been no unusual increase in the average temperatures around the Earth for quite some time now.

You, PMZ, have already demonstrated a woeful lack of good science education. I would strongly encourage you to read up--at unbiased scientific sites--on the stuff you post so your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding wouldn't be quite so glaring and obvious.

And then I would encourage you to appreciate the liberty, options, choices, and opportunity the Founders of this great nation intended for us all to have, and not be eager to give them away to powers that do not have your best interests at heart and probably don't like you very much.

 

[PMZ]

Not with my money you're not moving on, madam.

In fact, we are. At least for the government responsibilities. As for all of the private investors pursuing the opportunity of future energy, you can opt out if you want.

You want us to follow the most expensive path. We employ science to determine the optimum path. You employ politics to try to impose your ignorance on us.

You have already lost.

If the government decides against the majority of the people, the people can do something about it. Keep up your pocket-picking of people who don't want or need your thefts, and you will see people putting evil thieves where they belong, behind bars with armed guards ensuring your comfortable stay. And if you took too much money through your piggish greed, lies, and graft, how are we the people going to take care of the thieves like you? Guess you'll go on a diet. Bid farewell to laughing your butt off on how easy it was for you to abuse the middle class and taking away their life's earnings for arrogance' sake. You have only painted me as a loser to conceal what you will lose if I do not cooperate with your help-yourself-to-my-life-savings schemes. It's my money and you cannot have it. I already paid plenty of taxes on it. You can't have any more.

"If the government decides against the majority of the people, the people can do something about it"

Ahhhh, something that we agree on. The power of democracy. The reason for the downfall of conservatism

The rest of your post is merely the result of your inability to reason. Doing nothing is unaffordable. The world, excluding the deniers, has the facts of science as evidence of that.

So the truth doesn't support the answer you'd like to be true. That doing nothing is cheaper than learning about and eventually solving the problem. So, to get your way, you deny science. Feel free, but most of us see that as acting ignorant.

Your choice.

 

[PMZ]

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

And yet despite a couple of decades of vastly increased wind and solar, restrictions on manufacturing, increased fuel standards on automobiles, and every developed nation reducing its CO2 output, the CO2 levels continue to increase at a steady rate. And you know what? We're all still here. Thriving. Doing fine. In fact, the scientists who aren't paid to support AGW are pretty sure there has been no unusual increase in the average temperatures around the Earth for quite some time now.

You, PMZ, have already demonstrated a woeful lack of good science education. I would strongly encourage you to read up--at unbiased scientific sites--on the stuff you post so your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding wouldn't be quite so glaring and obvious.

And then I would encourage you to appreciate the liberty, options, choices, and opportunity the Founders of this great nation intended for us all to have, and not be eager to give them away to powers that do not have your best interests at heart and probably don't like you very much.

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

And yet despite a couple of decades of vastly increased wind and solar, restrictions on manufacturing, increased fuel standards on automobiles, and every developed nation reducing its CO2 output, the CO2 levels continue to increase at a steady rate. And you know what? We're all still here. Thriving. Doing fine. In fact, the scientists who aren't paid to support AGW are pretty sure there has been no unusual increase in the average temperatures around the Earth for quite some time now.

You, PMZ, have already demonstrated a woeful lack of good science education. I would strongly encourage you to read up--at unbiased scientific sites--on the stuff you post so your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding wouldn't be quite so glaring and obvious.

And then I would encourage you to appreciate the liberty, options, choices, and opportunity the Founders of this great nation intended for us all to have, and not be eager to give them away to powers that do not have your best interests at heart and probably don't like you very much.

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

 

[PMZ]

Early man, and all animals, have only the power of their senses to understand their environment. Mankind was the first and only species to recognize that, and with the ability to, go beyond that limitation.

Science and math give us the ability to model, and therefore understand, and therefore predict what is beyond our senses and our times.

The basis of much of what conservatives want to be true, is that if we do nothing about energy, what we have today will just continue ad infinitum.

But energy and climate science, like all science, has extended our senses to things that are future and can't be seen. Climate science has noticed subtle changes in our climate, and tracked them to their source, greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. That allowed them to model and predict the consequences of doing nothing and all of our other alternatives. Great, right? Another triumph of mankind and our intellect.

Not so fast. What science discovered is at odds with folks who believe that we can continue unchanged with consequences no different than today.

Politics vs science. What people want vs what they can have. This is an ancient war. What's possible vs what people want to be true.

So, nobody should be in any way surprised at what goes on in venues like this. It's been going on since time immemorial. Politics vs science.

My belief is that over time science has always won the contest. I can't think of any but temporary victories for politics. This case is no exception in that way either. Politics did slow down scientific progress for a decade or two, in what could turn out to be a critical delay.

But, temporary always is, well, temporary, and now, progress is back on track in the science, engineering, doing, and business sectors.

Will we learn this time? Doubtful. Some people's politics will always be at odds with objective reality. But, mankind will always find a way to progress, to solve problems, to make two steps forward for every step back. It is our nature.

 

[PMZ]

And yet despite a couple of decades of vastly increased wind and solar, restrictions on manufacturing, increased fuel standards on automobiles, and every developed nation reducing its CO2 output, the CO2 levels continue to increase at a steady rate. And you know what? We're all still here. Thriving. Doing fine. In fact, the scientists who aren't paid to support AGW are pretty sure there has been no unusual increase in the average temperatures around the Earth for quite some time now.

You, PMZ, have already demonstrated a woeful lack of good science education. I would strongly encourage you to read up--at unbiased scientific sites--on the stuff you post so your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding wouldn't be quite so glaring and obvious.

And then I would encourage you to appreciate the liberty, options, choices, and opportunity the Founders of this great nation intended for us all to have, and not be eager to give them away to powers that do not have your best interests at heart and probably don't like you very much.

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who have the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst. And the only ones these days using "science" as the method to coerce, brainwash, threaten, or control others are the warmers.

 

[PMZ]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who has the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.

My experience is that the vast majority of science and scientists are professional, honest, skilled and objective, and the vast majority of politics and politicians are groups trying to impose what's best for them on others who do not benefit.

 

[PMZ]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who have the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

[/QUOTE]To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.[/QUOTE]

"Flawed science"

I assume that all works of mankind are to one degree or another flawed. The IPCC is no exception.

However, being a student of risk, I ask myself the question, is the "flawed science" of the IPCC likely to be more or less reliable than the zero science of denialists?

So, as long as the denialists community is unable to state any science that supports their politics, I will continue to see their point as least likely to be true.

 

[Foxfyre]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who has the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.

My experience is that the vast majority of science and scientists are professional, honest, skilled and objective, and the vast majority of politics and politicians are groups trying to impose what's best for them on others who do not benefit.

Sweetie, you HAVE no experience in this. Your ignorance of science demonstrates that in no uncertain terms. You've bought into the religion and that is your right to do. But that doesn't mean you get to play the rest of us for fools without getting called on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

 

[PMZ]

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

 

[JoeNormal]

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

 

[daveman]

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

There it is: "GIve us trillions of dollars...for the children!!"

No. Not until you prove your case. And in case you didn't notice, the climate is not cooperating with your fear-mongering.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

I know nothing of the sort. I know you Westboro Climate Church fundamentalists CLAIM it will, but so far, none of your predictions have come true.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

When you still have a job and electricity and your house isn't flooded or otherwise smashed by Angry Gaea, you can thank me.

 

[daveman]

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

There is none.

However the lowest cost climactic future for mankind is the continuation of the one that civilization adapted to.

It's been both warmer and cooler since the beginning of civilization. To which temperature are you referring?

Let me guess: The one that will allow you to tax CO2 the most.

 

[daveman]

Bizarre. We have science. You have politics. You don't want science, we don't want politics. You are searching for a political solution, we are searching for facts.

The world cannot afford to do nothing. You can't imagine a solution so doing nothing is your recommendation. You simply ignore the end of fossil fuels. What then, is answered by "punt".

Not anywhere near good enough.

\




You don't have shit silly person. ALL you have is propaganda and blind (really blind as it turns out) faith. You clowns are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church fruitcakes.

The factual basis for this rant is?

Your own claim that you implicitly and unquestioningly trust the IPCC and everything they say.

 

[bripat9643]

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

You'll have to explain why this have never happened in the past when the temperature was often far more than 5 degrees warmer than it is today.

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't have shit silly person. ALL you have is propaganda and blind (really blind as it turns out) faith. You clowns are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church fruitcakes.

The factual basis for this rant is?

Your own claim that you implicitly and unquestioningly trust the IPCC and everything they say.

PMZ is the Emperor of the Appeal to Authority. He doesn't even understand that it's a logical fallacy.

 

[daveman]

You don't get to vote for science that gives answers that support what you wish was true as real science.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Science is real when it's done expertly and objectively. There is no better example of that than the IPCC.

"All hail the IPCC, Peace Be Upon Them!"

That's why they have to work in your shit storm of political dirty tricks.

Asking questions is not a political dirty trick. But thanks for yet again demonstrating your utter ignorance of the scientific method.

And they do. And they will.

Incompetently and corruptly.

While that giant flushing sound is your movement swirling in the bowl.

Yeah, not so much.

The Reference Frame: RSS: a negative temperature trend in 16.67 years

At any rate, my preferred temperature record – the satellite-based RSS AMSU dataset – has approached a point in which the global warming trend in the recent 17 years is statistically insignificant and negligible. In fact, if you include the latest 200 months i.e. 16 years and 8 months (from December 1996 through July 2013 included) into your calculation of linear regression, you get a negative warming trend!​

 

[daveman]

The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees

That would convince me

There are too many variable to do such an experiment in a lab.

Impossible. When we ask for the scientific basis of AGW, we're invariably referred to Tyndall's original experiment -- which had maybe 3 variables, tops.

We've been told this accurately models an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans (as well as the nearest star) with millions of variables.