Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is a study of the effect on real estate prices from 2007 to 2016. That is the when and there is a MAP showing where.
    You obviously didn't bother to read it! No surprise there!
     
  2. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Moving the goalposts fallacy.

    The AGW hypothesis and the CAGW hypothesis are not the same thing. Nobody claims that warm blooded mammals do not warm their environment.
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I directly addressed the topic being discussed. Someone said that real science is falsifiable, and I pointed out that AGW theory is falsifiable.

    Well, sure. After all, the "CAGW hypothesis" is just WUWT conspiracy cult lingo. Normal people have no idea what it means. Since it's your fantasy, of course it can't be falsified.

    By the way, you should avoid using that term, being how it marks anyone using it as a member of the WUWT conspiracy cult, and thus instantly zeroes out their credibility.

    (I feel kind of bad for the WUWT crowd. They're told how special and awesome they are, and sent out to spread the good world of their faith ... and it never turns out well for them.)

    Since nobody was talking about warm-blooded mammals, how is that relevant to the conversation?

    And what's your theory of what is currently driving the earth's climate changes, and what hard data would disprove that theory?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  4. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Humans are warm-blooded mammals.

    And AGW is simply not a thing that needs to be mitigated unless you claim that it is Catostropic AGW, hence the term CAGW.

    Understand, or no?
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    286
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, and it has been falsified, which is why temperature data now have to be falsified to preserve AGW theory.
    Same as the factors that have driven them all along, with the addition of a derisory contribution from anthropogenic CO2, CH4, etc.
    The long-predicted but not-going-to-happen disappearance of arctic sea ice would be a start. Certainly temperatures that continue to be well within Holocene norms won't do it.
     
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Flat-earthers, antivaxxers and scientologists also use the "all the data is faked!" line. It's standard cult behavior, and when you hear it, you know to ignore the speaker.
     
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're telling us that any time the topic is humans, someone should bring up the fact that humans are warm-blooded mammals.

    A normal person, however, would say that it has nothing to do with the conversation.

    And that's still WUWT cult lingo, which nobody should use if they don't want to be identified as a WUWT conspiracy cult member.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    286
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not all.
    "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
     
  9. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if the warming that all of us warm blooded mammals do to our environments is not going to be catastrophic, then what is your reason for trying to stop us warm blooded mammals from warming our environment in the first place?

    Are you one of those narcissistic nutjob hypocrite misanthropes?
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The warming humans are causing has nothing to do with being warm-blooded. Thus, it's just weird to keep declaring that "warm-blooded" is relevant. It's like saying "air-breathing" or "bipedal". While correct, it has no bearing on the conversation.

    That's your goofy claim, not mine. Since it's not my claim, the question doesn't apply to me.

    As your question would seem to only apply to you, you're the one who needs to answer it.

    My best guess is you're using this stupid troll routine as an excuse to deflect from the question you couldn't answer, so I'll just ask the question again.

    What's your theory of what is currently driving the earth's climate changes, and what hard data would disprove that theory?
     
  11. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,638
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not the first time that experts, in some narrow field of expertise, were left to sincerely believe that life of Earth as we know it depends on their prognostications and prescriptions. I have personally heard politicians and preachers make the same claim.
     
  12. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You are ignorant of science. All warm blooded mammals warm their environment.
     
  13. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,135
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My take on this with the modeling why not assume the center of the models not the extreme ends the big bulb in the center on any bell curve which is likely o be what will happen. And you wand carbon reduction we have a reliable technology - nuclear which the climate Change supporters don't want.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2020
  14. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,696
    Likes Received:
    4,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In case you haven't noticed, people don't care about climate change, they care about having groceries and toilet paper.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You support my ongoing point about deniers having no sense of scale.

    Yes, warm-blooded creatures warm their environment. Since that has less than a millionth of the effect that greenhouse gas warming, it's totally irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,108
    Likes Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    YALFEA (Yet Another Lame Flat Earther Accusation)
     
  17. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you continue to warm the environment?
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  18. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course data has been faked. If you had bothered to read the leaked CRU emails you would already know that. One obvious specific example is the Chinese station data. Yes, all actual thinking people who are not totally ignorant of China's history knew damn well that there was no ****ing station data during the heyday super-leftist anti-science years of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Those people were all ****ing killed.

    Us actual scientists knew that. You loopy cultists did not. You people are literally doomsday cult members. You just don't know it because cult members practically never know that they are in a doomsday cult.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    286
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In fact, AGW theory is science so hard it actually has been disproved with many types of hard evidence!
    False. I have given an answer: temperature following CO2. It hasn't and doesn't. The millennium-scale Holocene temperature changes have occurred without significant CO2 variation, and what variation has been recorded has followed temperature rather than leading it.
    No problem. The earth's climate -- more specifically, change therein -- is driven by numerous complex natural and artificial processes and feedbacks, some of them regular periodic cycles based on physical rotation like the year and Milankovic cycles, some of them non-periodic cycles based on feedback loops like the solar and ocean circulation cycles, some of them one-way trends like the sun's increasing main sequence output, some of them apparently unpredictable, like geomagnetism, vulcanism, continental drift and comet/asteroid impacts, some of them context-dependent like ice-albedo feedback, CO2-ocean temperature feedback and water vapor-cloud feedback, and some of them under human control, like deforestation and emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption.

    Hard data disproving that theory would be something like CO2 consistently leading temperature in the paleoclimate record, rather than vice versa. The claim that all these factors except anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been ruled out as possible principal factors in the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the last 200 years -- which is the essence of AGW theory -- is of course anti-scientific garbage.
     

Share This Page