Where’s My Global Warming?

Per unit of power produced renewables get between 80 and 100 times the subsidies of fossil fuels in the US. In Europe I'd wager the subsidies are far higher

 

I do not dismiss science when it actually exists, but the non existence of hard empirical science on AGW has made it easier for political shysters to manipulate the cavernous gaps in our knowlege in order to facilitate their own agendas

 

Why do fossil fuels get subsidies in the first place. Not to many oil companies out there crying poor

 

if we were to look back over the years the number of ludicrous reasons/excuses for global warming is likely staggering...this "unknown solar process" maybe the all time champion of silly....the skeptic/deniers have given up all pretense of keeping the debate scientific, they've digressed to the invisible, the unprovable, into magic(unknown solar activity)...meanwhile there is this awkward problem of increased GHG/CO2 that they won't address, CO2 for which action and reaction is temporarily suspended...

 

See the US EIA figures for 2010 at the foot of post #90 for more details

 

Venus has the highest surface temperatures of any planet in our solar system.

 

Oh right.

If you deny that the increase in CO2 in entirely human-caused, then you've denied conservation of mass. That sounds pretty much like science denial to me.

If you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- meaning that it is transparent in visible light and absorbs in infrared -- then you've denied a century of lab experiments and half a century of quantum mechanical theory. That sounds pretty much like science denial to me.

If you deny that greenhouse gases make the earth warmer, then you've denied conservation of energy. That sounds pretty much like science denial to me.

If you don't deny any of those things, then we're making the planet warmer. Which you deny. Which means you're denying science.

 

Especially the one claiming that an extra 0.012% (per atmospheric volume) of a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas can drive global temperature change.

 

Changing some nouns:

I do not dismiss science when it actually exists, but the non existence of hard empirical science on [Evolution] has made it easier for [Athiests] shysters to manipulate the cavernous gaps in our knowlege in order to facilitate their own [anti-religious] agendas

Behold: A typical argument from a creationist on evolution.

 

in canada the oil industry gets somewhere between 2-3 billion yearly in provincial and federal tax breaks...the IMF calculates canadians subsidize the oil industry by $800 per person in increased taxes...

I'm already awaiting the next generation Tesla in 4 years which it's said will be priced at 35K, with BMW performance...BMW stats with zero fuel costs? nice...

 

It doesnt matter what the CO 2 level is doing when its attribution for the current warming has never been empirically established

Strawman

And another

Until a direct empirical link establishes that an extra 0.012% (by atmospheric volume) of a beneficial trace gas can do all the evils claimed for it then my skepticism will continue. I'm still waiting for such evidence

 

WOW! you've been in my head! that's exactly what I've been thinking for the last couple of days...

 

Dont let me stop you providing the Peer reviewed empirical evidence that humans have caused the current warming phase. Hint .... climate models arent it

 

only 2kg of the botulism toxin is sufficient to kill every person on the planet and it's natural...the amount has little relationship to it's effect...GHG's have different strengths not related to their % in the atmosphere...

and CO2 isn't benign talk to any HVAC engineer, it's a cause of sick building syndrome and in low amounts will make you ill or even kill you...it's all relative...

 

Obviously you don't know what a strawman argument is. It's really, really simple, flogger: either you believe something or you don't. If you don't believe either of those propositions, that's fine. But that's not a strawman, it's just you stating your position, which just happens to deny science.

Then obviously you haven't been paying attention. Experiment: dump 1.2 trillion tonnes of CO2 into one planetary atmosphere. Result: Planet gets warmer. Theory confirmed.

 

Can you explain the difference between weather and climate.

 

or you could've used Venus as an example of extreme greenhouse effect...

 

At the end of the day, climate science deniers are relying on fallacies to support their arguments. This becomes apparent when one realizes that climate deniers cannot meet both conditions of a valid argument of authority, but climate science supporters are able to meet both conditions.

Conditions for a valid argument of authority:
1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

 

Stick with believing hysteria all you like. Theres clearly nothing I could possibly present to you that will alter your mindset

So where were those Gigatons during the even longer and warmer phases since the last glaciation ? Might it be that we are actually demonizing something to suit political ends rather than environmental ones ? What is this 'ideal' temperature the planet should be and why ?

 

Actually no. Research over last couple of years indicates the atmospheric conditions on Venus are the result of a catastrophic meltdown of the crust. Basically 200 million years ago the entire planet became a volcano

 

When have I or any other skeptic ever denied climate ?

You forget that the skeptic position has no hypothesis to defend. The burden of proof is all yours to establish

 

it's all relative...

even if CO2 is only a small amount percentage wise, the temperature caused by altering that percentage change is also very small, but life on this planet exists on a knife edge in regards to temp...small changes of only a few degrees has devastating consequences. only 3 degrees C cooler than we are now and we're in an ice age...

the average temp of mars is -55c, Venus is 460c, earth 14c...complex life exists in only a tiny temperature range, move it even a tiny bit and bad things happen, and it's moved a tiny bit...

 

Because it has the thickest atmosphere over a known solid surface. What you apparently don't understand is that Venus's surface temperature is mainly a result of the Combined Gas Law, not the CO2 greenhouse effect. Same reason Mars's surface is dead cold, despite having more CO2 over it than the earth. It would be little different if Venus's atmosphere was all nitrogen.

 

Modern submariners live with CO 2 levels 10 -15 times that of normal for months at a time big deal !

 

If it's a few degrees colder.

Meaning that 3 degrees warmer got us OUT of an ice age.

Warm periods used to be called, "optimums" for a reason.