Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

It is an estimate, an extrapolation as to how much man is adding to global warming. The extremes, which I am not and never was say 100% to 0%. Logic tells us that the extremes as always are wringer than wrong.

 

The AGW hypothesis and the proposals it's hard core advocates put forth to combat it are based on the "fact" that man is now the primary climate driver.



Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.W_rYwPaIaf1

 

One would have to see what climate scientists say what factor causes how much. On climate change I am in the reasonable, logical, non hysterical range just as I am with my politics. I am not going to believe the radical "left" any more than I am going to believe the Rush Limbaugh idiocy of raw stupid ignorant climate change denial. If anyone digs back n history youbwill find that Limbaugh just like Trump and just like others of the extremist gang had at one time denied climate change completely. Now they just deny that man had some influence.

We can logically conclude that man had some effect that does not mean that we need to get it down to the second decimal point as how much.

 

I would need to see scientific data before I believe their man is the primary driver accusation.

Same as I demand that the absolute deniers need to show me proof.

Crazy extremes from either slide are just aboutvalways wrong in their accusations.

 

We are talking about Global warming, not about your knowledge of CO2.

 

No I did not do a search within the last 24 hours but I do recall hearing a guest on Coast to Coast AM talk about itband I recall reading a story on BBC some time ago. I trust BBC on many things but of course I have been accused by my wife of being a bit of an Anglophile. I may have read a version of that article. I see it is 2015 dated.

Edit add

This is one Inam sure that I read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

Or this!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358953.stm

Or this
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

I think there are few if any that claim man has zero impact on climate but there is a huge amount of true believers that say we are now the primary driver of climate. Question is whether or not our contribution is of any real consequence. If it isn't then we are wasting time and money focusing so much attention on this and even making decisions to mitigate it at the expense of real pollution which is often increased by attempting to mitigate our C02 contribution. Out of the frying pan into the fire logic.

 

We're you not the one that called C02 "filthy"?

 

I never mentioned it at all. You must have me confused with Thingamajig.

 

Sometimes correlation implies causation. You would know that if you paid attention in school.

 

Yeah, well if Mommy Erf ever had anything like a heart attack, I'm afraid I missed it.

Actually I'd say the big assumption is that there are any putative experts who have demonstrated any actual expertise - assuming, of course, that securing the approbation of their colleagues doesn't count as such.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding. To the extent the data acquisition process can be trusted you can say they've offered plenty of evidence, but the idea that CAGW is proven can only be taken seriously by the seriously gullible.

Actually it never does. It often suggests causation, but there is no such thing as a reliable deduction of causation from correlation alone.

 

OK, even if humans were not the primary cause (a totally anti-science idea) we still need to do work to mitigate warming.

We ARE warming. And, it makes no sense to sit here like a toad on a hotplate, ignoring the impact of the warming that IS ocurring and that science says will continue.

Issues such as water and food have serious national security implications for significant parts of the world population - which will certainly affect us both at home and throughout the world.

 

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/a.../letter-to-president-trump-on-climate-change/

The letter sent to Trump by the AMS that is used as a source in your post
I rest my case

 

Evidence is coming from numerous sources (different methods, different organizations, different nations) that are too varied to be coordinated by a conspiracy.

The thing about "proof" is that there isn't any possibility of "proof" about the future. So, the demand for proof is really no more than a cheap trick of those who don't want to accept what we have.

I mean, what would YOU accept as proof?

 

Lol gtfoh. what do you think the word imply means?

Suggest and imply are synonyms. You're super smart though. dont worry. We are all impressed.

 

Using the term that loosely, your statement becomes a mere truism, devoid of any potential to enlighten anybody. Enjoy.

If you say so.

 

Amen on the point that all this focus on carbon, the foundation of life, takes resources from real pollution, like plastics in oceans and chemicals in ground water.

Global warming freezes 190 sea turtles to death

The Boston Globe blamed global warming for the sharp drop in temperatures in Cape Cod that led to the freezing death of 190 sea turtles. ("Turtle rescuers blame climate change, geography for unprecedented stranding numbers.")

The newspaper also called the event turtlegeddon. Does anyone over 12 work there any more?

 

"whoosh"

 

A comforting thought, no doubt.

 

Did you decide to deposit the carbon as coal, crude, and gas? If not, why do you get to decide where it belongs now?

 

Just more of the ongoing smear Trump campaign...nothing to see here folks...move along.

 

So, you are unaware that the Antarctic circumpolar current is warming causing the ice shelf to melt, which is the consequence of global warming. "You missed it", eh?

 

The big question is - how much did human contribute?
We are coming out of ice age now, so temperature trends are expected to go up. Some scientists believe that the temps are going up too rapidly, but in all reality, we don’t have reliable global temperature measurements that go back further than 100. Everything that goes further out is speculation and assumption. So, how can you claim that out of 100 years of reliable records you can make real scientific projections? Sometimes I wonder if those climate scientists ever took a statistics class.
On the top of the issues I outlined above I personally have a few more: sun is getting bigger and hotter every second - how come that doesn’t count? How come life on earth prospered better than it is now at the times when global temperatures were much higher than they are today? How come life was fine when CO2 levels in atmosphere were much higher than they are today?
And the one that pissed me off the most - how come climate change pretty much turned into a religion where you get ridiculed for even questioning known theories? Isn’t that unscientific?

 

"Implies" is the operative word here. You don't make major socioeconomic changes with flimsy implied evidence

 

We have been warming since the last ice age ended so being afraid of that is pointless. If you want to fear something fear another mini ice age, the last one was pretty tough on humanity.