Climate Change , A Final Warning

The idea that the very people who taught you that are ignorant of this, their own discovery, is absurd. I thought I was very clear about that. It is absurd, and you should be embarrassed of your behavior.

 

Whose saying that? I am sure you know the names of those making the claims it is done by man.
So, you want to dispute scientists saying warming is natural. This will be fun for you to prove.

 

The good news is that only the comically credulous will take this seriously. The bad news is that comical credulity seems to be epidemic.

 

You are. You are saying that the fact that the earth warms and cools -- a fact taught to you by the same people sounding the alarms on climate, by the same people who are producing all the science now, and by the same people who are now flocking to an overwhelming consensus on climate change -- somehow undermines the climate theories they collectively formed and accept..

This IS, indeed, your suggestion. Own it.

It is patently absurd. You should take measures to correct this bad behavior.

 

According to who?

 

OP

There are a few things which will finish us off long before climate change gets us.

 

Interesting that you chose to ignore the entire rest of my post...

 

Our species is skilled at denial of all kinds. At this point in the early 21st Century we appear to have forgotten a discussion rife in the 1960’s, and later. This went under the title ‘The population bomb’. Simply put we keep breeding like mad and surviving longer into old age on a planet that, surprise, surprise,is of limited size. So, even if the climate change deniers are right there’s more threats to the survival of our species out there than most of this planet’s population dare think about. We are heading for a very well deserved extinction.

 

I see loads of people crossing loads of bridges. Have done all my life.
Crossed a great many myself.

Haven't seen any global meltdowns yet though. Not one.


Science vs fantasy.
Empiric evidence vs supposition.

 

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

Despite the controversial policy implications, the United States delegation joined more than 180 countries on Saturday in accepting the report’s summary for policymakers, while walking a delicate diplomatic line. A State Department statement said that “acceptance of this report by the panel does not imply endorsement by the United States of the specific findings or underlying contents of the report.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/...ml?action=click&module=inline&pgtype=Homepage
.....................................................................................................................................................................
So.........the US delegation said they accept the findings but aren't going to do anything about them. Cuz......you know........they can't afford to lose the coal and fossil fuel vote. Kinda reminds me of the Repub reaction to Ford's testimony. They accepted her account as credible.........but decided they just didn't care.

 

The cult actually believes man controls climate. Perhaps they can tell us what Earth's temperature should be and exactly how much carbon we should put into it on a daily basis to counteract natural forces and keep the climate stable at that ideal temperature. The hubris here is astounding.

 

Feel free to start by shutting off whatever device you are using to post in here.

 

"The “97% consensus” figure that CAGW-advocates faithfully, unremittingly parrot is misleading. One of the most cited papers purporting to demonstrate a 97% consensus on AGW was John Cook 2013. This paper referenced a total of 12,271 papers and these papers were split up into 7 categories. Category 1 included only 65 papers that claimed humans were the “primary cause” of global warming. Category 2 included 934 papers that acknowledged AGW was a “known fact”. Category 3 included 2,933 papers that acknowledged “greenhouse gases cause warning”. Category 4 took “no position” and 5, 6, 7, either implicitly or explicitly rejected AGW. The 97% consensus was arrived at by taking the first 4 categories (which had around 12,000 papers) and counting them as “for” AGW. However, most CAGW-skeptics would agree that AGW is a “known fact” and that “greenhouse gases cause warning” and therefore skeptics could be included in the 97%. Category 1 was the only one which included papers that claimed that humans were the “primary cause” of global warming (i.e. over 50%) and that included only 65 papers. The 97% consensus that humans are the “primary cause” of global warming is really a 0.5% consensus (i.e. 65 papers of 12,271) because category 1 was the only category that explicitly endorsed the idea that humans were the “primary cause” of global warming."

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

 

Like I said. There was no such survey. This survey was also claimed as being the source of the 97% lie. I took the survey and I would have been part of the 97%.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf.

 

That's nice info, but didn't answer the question.

 

Awesome. So what does this have to do with 1) Me being dead in 20 years, 2) My plans to buy a Dodge Ram 3500 in 18 months or less and 3) that it's a toss up whether or not the human race ****s itself with pollutants or some other method?

 

It occurs to me that you're making a statement that is clearly not factual. While scientists are a group, that doesn't indicate that scientists with interdiscipline differentiation are the same group. The folks who have studied geological climate are clearly not the same folks who are producing anthropogenic predictions, and clearly, these would not be the same folks who have articulated the historic or empiric climate data. More, it is frankly ludicrous to assert that there is an inclusion of those data sets included in the modern theology of anthropogenic prediction or comparison. Doesn't happen. Which is why so many folks in the business of selling AGW are only using data sets post 1950s or so. Of course folks who've been taught that historic climate has modulated between glaciation and interglacial states are not the same group of scientists. It is entirely dishonest of you to suggest that they are.

So, the climate has both warmed, and cooled. These changes have occurred historically entirely absent human (anthropogenic) means. The better question then is why the modern anthropogenic advocates are so unwilling to include the historic record in their data sets. As for your tone, it seems, shrill. Demanding. I know a few 5 yos like that....

 

Arguing the findings of countless scientific studies, research, research expeditions, and climatologists with the right wing deniers is pointless. Millenia ago, these would be holdouts for a flat earth. Best to just move on. Businesses now ignore their arguments and go full out for carbon reduction and energy efficiency. Electric car sales soar, recycle programs advance, and the general population of the earth ignore deniers as crackpots.

Deniers ignore the fact that even the U.S military has included global warming in its strategic planning as a threat. The only remaining deniers are coal miners and oil companies. The rest of us are moving away from those sources of energy as quickly as possible. To argue with deniers is to give credence to their arguments as worthy of consideration. They are not. The train has left the station and they are left standing on the platform shaking their fists at us as we depart.

 

Sorry, but you are engaging in a futile effort when talking to the far Right about climate change. I partly blame Gore himself for this by politicizing the science. Additionally, and probably worse, were those scientists who, like Mark Furlong, hoped to push the idea along by playing fast and loose with the evidence. Even though I think they, like Mark Furlong, are right, they did wrong by their actions. Now the situation is so muddied, that average people are confused and distrustful of science.

Another factor in this mess is the increased religious views prevalent within the Republican party. Many (half?) take the Bible literally so they can't be persuaded any differently by science which, in their minds, is either just wrong or the work of Satan.

 

"Irrational" is ignoring the now rampant science fraud that is destroying the credibility of science - especially political science.

"Can’t take criticism? Just make up your own reviews! It may sound far-fetched, but we’ve now counted more than 270 retractions, more than half of them this year, which occurred because authors or editors compromised the peer-review process in some way—most egregiously, some authors faked email addresses for peer reviewers and gave their own papers a green light."
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

 

Why do I feel, this isn't the final warning at all.

 

It's not and there will be no final warning until the human race is past the tipping point toward extinction. A time far past my lifespan....so party on!

 

Even if the science was strong. The proposed solutions are still all weak/more self destructive than the problem.
Cure is still worse than disease.

The world is about to to end, quick.... hand over control to the dumbest people on the planet. Hmmm. Let me think for a second... No.

 

Fake Science kills.

"Neuroscientist Edward Awh lost four papers in 2015 after David Anderson, one of his graduate students, admitted to falsifying data. In an unusual turn of events, Anderson responded to our request for comment by taking full responsibility for his actions, which he said resulted from an “error in judgment.”
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

Don't plan on parking that Ram 3500 in your garage next to your wife's little Ford 150.

 

Disagreed, but I'm taking my own advice to @Mamasaid

Sooooo, I need a big truck to haul a 5th wheel. I'm leaning toward a Dodge Ram 3500 4x4 diesel dually. Do you know anything about trucks?