Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

So basically you have no clue about history and climate.

 

There have been ~ 2000 scientific papers written on the data and history of the MWP and LIA. A well read historian interested in climate science might have read one or two of these ?? If not they might have shown the curiosity and initiative to do so ??

 

You clearly don't.

 

I am sure a lot of ancient and medieval writers wrote about the medieval warm period and little ice age.
Modern scientists are surely going through the historic writings when doing climate science... Surely..

You guys are freaking hilarious.

 

The ~ 2000 scientific papers have been written by contemporary researchers. You have not heard of the MWP and the LIA and the impacts of those periods on the historical development of the human race ?? Curious that a historian would not understand those periods and others earlier in the historic record.

 

Do you know what the conversation you jumped into is about?
I made fun of Hoosier because he reads historic sources to determine the climate in those eras.

You might want to read before joining the conversation.

 

Showing your own ignorance of historical climate impact isn't helping your credibility.

 

I've jumped into a conversation from a historian who doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the MWP and LIA. Reminds me of the great student of current events, Gary Johnson - "What is a leppo ??".

 

The theory that volcanic activity played a major role in The Little Ice Age is logical.

http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html
Volcanoes May Have Sparked Little Ice Age

..........

The Global Dimming Effect seems to have been deliberately used over this past decade to
delay some of what could well turn out to be the most dangerous parts of a general Global Warming
trend.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...m-harper-deliberately-use-global-dimming.html

Did President G. W. Bush and P. M. Harper deliberately use Global Dimming to..
.... mask...… to decrease..... to hide.......to postpone......... a general Global Warming trend?

A second legitimate question is..... within fifty years is it at all possible that we may find out that they may perhaps have had a basically good idea in doing this?

 

Not fact as you can see with the word 'may'. These weasle words are used a lot because they really don't know and are just providing conjecture, an idea.

 

I am no expert but Dr. James Hansen and his colleagues impressed me as being quite objective when
they elaborated on the research surrounding the Global Dimming Effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

 

Archeological evidence is definitive. the earth's climate changes all the time. Hell the last ice age didn't end until just 10,000 years ago.

The real debate is not that we are experiencing climate change.
The real debate is to what extent does human activity contribute to the RATE OF CHANGE, and what should be done about such inputs, if anything.

It strikes me that the climate denialists, utilize many of the same tactics as holocaust deniers. (Not that those two positions are in anyway equivalent one is science the other is history).

I'm not interested in getting into the weeds of the science, I'll take the word of the vast majority of scientist while accepting that they have their fair share of quacks and charlatans as the deniers do, coupled with common sense.

By common sense, I mean that in the closed system of our biosphere, having hundreds of billions of tons of artificially produced greenhouse gases dumped into it, MUST have some serious effects. IN this case I believe the effect to be an meaningful accelerant of the normal rate of change and the pattern of that change. this of course does not mean that the other influences like orbital perturbations, galactic plane positioning, variable solar input and massive geological events are also not relevant.

In my mind the real question is how much should and will the world invest in eliminating the production of known accelerants in order to "normalize" the rate of change?
Climate change can't be stopped but at least we can buy a considerable amount of time to solve the enormous global problems that that change presents our civilization.

 

That ^^ is ridiculous. If you are interested in the science and the climate data behind it you owe it to yourself to do some homework on the relationship between CO2 and global temperature increase which the data indicates. That is much less than the models predict. Also do some homework on the benefits of global warming and the economic damage that ill conceived energy policies in the western democracies will generate for no effect on global average temperature 100 years from now.

 

that is not a ridiculous statement in the least. Or perhaps you are unaware of the tactics of denial. There are MANY similarities since both are minority positions. But this comparison in no way equates the merits of the denial itself. Climate denialists can utilize actual science in their arguments (for the most part), but holocaust deniers can't utilize anything but quackery and psuedo-science.
here's a handly link to the tactics that holocaust denialists use. While on a completely different subject and not nearly as far out nor motivated by hatred, if you peruse this list I am pretty sure you will recognize the similarities.
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

ONce again, as I said I am not interested in getting into the weeds. I qualified my position by saying I believe the preponderance of scientific opinion coupled with some common sense.

AS to what the remedies should be and to what extent it makes sense to implement them, THAT is the real question. I for one believe that reductions in pollution are a good thing for the planet anyway you wanna slice it.

 

Your 48.294 comments did that for you.
You really have no credibility... You know that right?
Nevertheless... Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would see the issues with you determining climate from historic sources.

 

Funny... You were the first one two mention those acronyms and I translated them in the first response to you.
Not only do you fail to follow the conversation you jump into... You can't even remember what you write and what I respond.
Sorry... EPIC FAILURE.

Don't you have that repeated line about CO2 sensibility? It seems to be missing

 

A more apt comparison may be between the AGW deniers of today and the people who used to deny the link between tobacco and cancer.

 

I have said numerous times that they resemble the creationist crowd more and more.
Their material will soon be as outdated. Just listen to AFM and his hockey stick he brings up all the time.

Truth be told... It's the same crowd. And neither are to be found in Europe... Mostly Murdoch countries.

 

Logical fallacy such as you just posted is the hallmark of an anti-intellectual arguement.

 

Again a ridiculous statement which is not at all supported by the link you have provided.

If your mind is closed on the subject that is fine. I'd also suggest reading the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" before suggesting that anything which affects or changes the atmosphere should be classified a negative and place above the welfare of the citizens of third world countries.

 

It's clear where the "epic failure" lies - it's the denial of data in favor of models which can't "predict" the data. But what does a historian know about CO2 sensibility ??

 

Funny, there seem to be more than a few scientists and economists in Europe which recognize the true magnitude of global warming and the benefits of it. The governments of the western democracies certainly have jumped on the global warming alarmist bandwagon to the significant detriment of their economies and the welfare of their citizens.

The hockey stick is the first and most egregious example of the corruption of climate science and the scientific method by both technical and political people which continues today. Although the hockey stick has been properly discredited as junk science there continue to be many who believe in it's false conclusions.

 

That is a direct comparison, whereas I was merely comparing the tactics employed. I do agree that since the "denialist" AG crowd is also funded and directed in large part by commercial vested interests, your example is an excellent and appropriate one.

 

In reverse the real money is government money to study CO2 centric AGW. If you want to study something that is not CO2 centric, such as solar variability effect on climate you will not be getting government grants. What you are really saying is that the current faith based science is fully funded by government to the tune of billions.

 

Which logical fallacy do you think this is an example of?