Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

According to the OP, yes. He accepts erroneous predictions from the past and rejects current IPCC projections.

He wants a filament that flames out in seconds.

 

I do post lines when I'm talking to an individual has demonstrated the capacity to digest and comment on the content of the link. AND the post I'm replying to isn't just yet another spin on the same cliched garbage I've already commented.

 

Good points. And, I believe the 4.4C gain was based on the most drastic RCP/SSP8.5 which is rated as "very unlikely". I believe I also saw recently the IPCC was considering lowering their models' temp gains recently.

 

Where is the science that shows that government can "fix" the climate?

 

My issue with climate change nut jobs is that they can’t definitively say that we are the cause of the CO2 increase. Why? We have had MULTIPLE periods in earths history where the CO2 levels increased MUCH higher and MUCH faster than they are today.

Can you or ANYONE ELSE definitively say that whatever natural process caused those massive increases in CO2 in earths history is not the same process that’s increasing the CO2 today?

 

There isn't. Just really crappy regulatory ideas that will ruin modern society as we know it.

 

Well, sorry but I haven’t seen evidence of that - does not mean it does not exist but……

 

Awwww! So, what are these “regulations”?

 

You are joking yes? Did you even bother to check this yourself first?

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

Can you do us a favour and actually check on the validity of this sort of rubbish before you flop it out there?

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

There is even a summary for the hard of thinking

 

I can definitely say that humans are “natural” so it doesn’t really matter. We are just as natural as the Cyanobacteria that effed up the planet by pumping a bunch of oxygen into the atmosphere. The planet hasn’t been the same since.

What matters most to me is that a cool planet sucks for humans and a warmer planet sucks less for humans.

My main issue with climate nutters is they prefer temps that result in more human mortality and they are angry temps are changing to a state where temps cause less human mortality.

 

They don’t want fixes. They need problems. There is plenty of science that could be leveraged to improve the environment. Governments aren’t interested.

When government and media complain about floods they aren’t interested in the fact they are most often caused by improper land use (deforestation, mono-cropping, urban sprawl, improper flood control structures) and not CO2. If CO2 is involved at all it’s often a very minor contributor.

The fact governments and nutters want to address the most minor problem and ignore the major problems is evidence they don’t want the problem solved.

The fact governments and nutters focus on the least effective solutions that take the longest to have meaningful impact (if ever) and ignore faster more effective solutions is evidence they don’t want to solve problems.

The purpose of an entity is what it does, not what it claims to do.

 

Yes. 8.5 scenario requires 1000-1200 ppm atmospheric CO2. That would be a little more than 7 ppm average increase per year from 1985 to 2100 to achieve. Unlikely.

The author of the OP essentially claims atmospheric levels of 475 ppm would result in a “several” degree C rise in temp. There is no evidence to support that claim.

 

You mean like letting EPA regulate IC engines and vehicles out of existence?

You're not aware of that?

Oh, that's right, you're not an American.

 

Offer something other than climate scare stories and you will. Read and study both sided of the issue rather than following Climatogy PhD groupie garbage. Maybe look around at find some ACTUAL proof using actual data rather then made up nonsense like "global temperature".

 

You mean like the IPCC reports?

 

No I am not and I am betting Australia has more stringent regulations than America although Europe probably has us both beat

 

If “they” (who ever in the world “they” are) “don’t want fixes” why is there a whole Assessment Report outlining strategies?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

 

LOL, the IPCC reports are woefully distorted by social justice interference. Read the introductory comments. Some authors make no bones about being swayed by societal concerns outweighing scientific evidence. The call it "the good lie".

 

“Social Justice Interference”?? Like back in the day when Saudi Arabia put pressure on the IPCC to downplay the impact of fossil fuels?

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...ut-language-with-techno-fixes-in-ipcc-report/

 

So, if Saudi Arabia can pressure IPCC to sway it, why can't Uber-climate disasterists do the same thing?

 

Yes we can because the issue is that its happening FASTER than it has in the past.

 

Not interested in either Australia or Europe. They've got their own problems.

But America is a representative democracy. We vote for representatives to, well, represent us in our government.

But somehow we've managed to get regulations that ban new ICEs entirely in light duty vehicles. Entirely. This "great" regulatory ban threatens to bankrupt an entire industry that will suddenly face mandates to sell vehicles few want and stop, under penalty of law, vehicles that have built the entire industry. By 2035 no less. For those playing at home, that's 12 short years from now.

When I was with Ford, they had 120,000 employees world wide. That's just one company. And that doesn't include the enormous worldwide supplier base.

Somebody somewhere thought that was a good idea.

The problem is, how did that happen? Congress- our representatives- never voted on it. Nobody I know voted on it. It just seemed to magically crawl out of the woodwork fully formed and unstoppable.

So maybe you can tell me since you've read all the approved IPCC literature.

 

Irony+hypocrisy+coal sales = Australia contribution to global warming..

It's actually like producing and profiting off all the material to create meth and then pointing fingers at all the countries/customers with drug addiction problems..

 

And while short sited America scream for more expensive energy China builds coal powered power plants at record pace. While countries like Australia profit from them

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

Insanity is far more detrimental to this planet than co2!