"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data Prove No Significant Warming!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jdub297
 

Nearly your entire post here is BS.

You possess no appreciation of parody.

At least you didn't say "all."


Climate science does NOT claim that earth is dying.

OK. So, catastrophic global warming, which may have already passed the "tipping point" from which there can be no return, only affects certain species of life? How do they know the difference?

I guess if I'd substituted "Warming" for "dying," everything would be good.
But is there really a difference?


The only thing Climate science claims is that the earth is warming and causing climate change and that Co2 released as a result of human activity is the dominant forcing of that warming.


Is that all?
What about the dire consequnces, such as loss of 50% of African cropland, political strife caused by hundreds of millions in mass migration, loss of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 in AR4?
What about the recent (draft) U. S. Global Change Research Program's National Climate Assessment?
Seems to me that it went far beyond your seemingly innoccuous statement to describe norhing short of disaster. Oh, and to demand more money to fix it.


James Hansen never gave 2000 as a date for the arctic icecap melting.

Oh, No!
Did I leave out eminent "climate scientist" Stephen Schneider? (Who also "predicted" in 1972, "A cooling trend has set in, perhaps akin to the Little Ice Age.")


NGO's aren't necessarily through the UN.

Yup; everybody's got one. If only they had more money, they could fix it.


Climate science is underfunded by governments.

You mean, if they only had more money, they could fix it?

jw
edit on 31-3-2013 by jdub297 because: I left out "warming"




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

However, I wish you and the others who do the same, would consider how unbelievably insulting you are by labeling anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of the Theory of AGW, as religious fanatics. Speaking for myself, you insult my actual spiritual faith by asserting or rather accusing me of worshiping something that I don't. There's nothing rabid or fanatical about my thoughts or how I speak on the subject. Maybe you didn't realize this or maybe you don't care, either way I've said my peace on it.


I, too, have faith; and belief in a higher power that we are incapable today of proving. That's why it's called "faith."

You have chosen to be the AGW "spokesperson" here.
I do not intend to challenge you personally, but the propositions you are steafastly defending.

You are advocating for unquestioning belief in a theory.
That smacks of "faith" to many agnostics.
You attack those who do not hold, or who challenge, your beliefs. Much like a missionary or crusader.
Instead of sacraments or Commandments, you have "models."

Your models are faulty, always have been, yet you are hurt when we show that.
You predictions fail, consistently. Yet you insist that you are right and non-believers are "deniers."

An ice cap is shrinking, an ice cap is growing. "Proof" of AGW!
It snows in England, it doesn't snow in England. "Proof" of AGW!
There's a drought in Texas, there's a flood in Texas. "Proof" of AGW!
There are more hurricanes, there are fewer hurricanes. "Proof" of AGW!
I can stop there, but I don't have to.

From what I've seen, the AGW argument goes something like this:
"It's getting warmer everywhere!"
"We're putting more CO2 into the environment!"
"We don't know of any other causes!"
"There's a "consensus!"
"Therefore, it must be US!"

Can you not step back, see through others' eyes, and see how odd that looks?

If AGW advocates weren't so strident, and didn't so frequently resort to epithets such as "denier" and worse, perhaps we who do not agree 100% would be less inclined to call you fanatics (and worse).

Does any of that, on this most Blessed of all days, not make sense?

jw
edit on 31-3-2013 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




OK. So, catastrophic global warming, which may have already passed the "tipping point" from which there can be no return, only affects certain species of life? How do they know the difference?


We may have passed the tipping point, then again maybe we'll have a large volcanic eruption before the tipping is felt that will help negate it. There's a 30-40 year lag.



I guess if I'd substituted "Warming" for "dying," everything would be good. But is there really a difference?


Yes a big one. Earth will be fine, we on the other hand may not be.



Is that all?


That's all.



What about the dire consequnces, such as loss of 50% of African cropland, political strife caused by hundreds of millions in mass migration, loss of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 in AR4?


Those are all very likely scenarios. The Himalayan Glaciers are getting pretty small. Political strife is a given, when water and food security is threatened, people don't react very well.



Seems to me that it went far beyond your seemingly innoccuous statement to describe norhing short of disaster.


I haven't seen that yet, but I doubt your statement.



Oh, and to demand more money to fix it.


Climate science can't fix global warming or climate change, they can only study it and prepare the world for it. Yes, that takes money.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




You have chosen to be the AGW "spokesperson" here.


I haven't chosen to be a spokesperson here, I post on things that matter to me... it goes beyond climate change.



You are advocating for unquestioning belief in a theory.


Gravity is also a theory, am I a gravity fanatic too? I'm not advocating for an unquestioning belief, such an approach in science would be silly. I argue things that are interpreted wrong or misrepresented. I'm also advocating for scientific consensus on a theory. Consensus actually means something very important, when it is reached it's because there's nothing left to debate for as long as that consensus remains. Skeptics aren't frozen out because science has gone dogmatic on a subject but because the skeptical arguments and papers etc... don't bare out.



yet you are hurt when we show that.


It doesn't hurt me, but so far nothing has shown to be incorrect.



You predictions fail, consistently. Yet you insist that you are right and non-believers are "deniers."


They aren't my predictions, but no, they don't fail consistently. "Denier" refers to a person who denies the consensus, you do deny the consensus don't you? It's not an insult, just a statement.



Can you not step back, see through others' eyes, and see how odd that looks?


I do all the time, I'm an empathetic person. Stating facts shouldn't look to another like religious zealotry.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Consensus actually means something very important, when it is reached it's because there's nothing left to debate for as long as that consensus remains.


That is absolutely preposterous.
If such were true, there would never be any advance of science (or anything).

I know you are not the "spokesperson;" nor are you alone in addressing skepticism:


The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
...
Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London.
...
He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.
Government's climate watchdog launches attack for revealing global warming science is wrong

So, if the data doesn't fit the models' "projections," just attack the credibility of anyone who says so.
Must be a tactic common to the faithful..

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I meant nothing more, currently...



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

Happy Easter! And thank you for linking to Ottmar Edenhofer's talk. I had to run in through a translator and here is the result (in two posts). I've highlighted some things I found interesting. :

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, on climate change all require a reduction of emissions. They now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What is it?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth went hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind has burned himself: Who is rich burned, but coal, oil or gas. And therefore the emerging countries are afraid of emission limits.

But all should participate in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That's easy to say. But above all, the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Since you can not expect India or China that find that this is a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas has become more expensive, but not coal. Emerging markets are working for the next 70 years their cities and power plants as if it were no permanent high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid to charity.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. When that happens per capita, then Africa is the big winner, and it flows a lot of money there. This has enormous implications for development policy. And it will also ask how these countries with so much money at all to deal meaningful.

That does not sound more like the climate policy that we know.

Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun later this month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet have - and we can accumulate only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

In fact this is an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all we developed countries have expropriated the atmosphere of the world community to speak. But one must say clearly: We distribute the climate policy de facto the world's wealth. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not excited, is obvious. You have to free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole to almost nothing.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change - especially in the South.

It will be too much to do with adaptation. But that just goes way beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa to climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if production efficiency is increased - and especially when the African agricultural trade is embedded in the world economy. But then we have to see that successful climate policy just needs a different global trade and financial policy.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Post Continued

The great misconception of the UN summit in Rio in 1992 is repeated in climate policy: The industrialized countries are talking about the environment, the development of developing countries.

It is even more complicated. In the eighties, our local environmental problems for the developing countries were a luxury problem. Who is already sick and car drives, can get excited about acid rain. For China, however, it was about how one gets 600 million Chinese into the middle class. Whether as a coal power plant is in the coal mines or the social standards are low, that was the first subordinated - as here in the 19th Century.

But the world has become smaller.

Now comes something new: It's not just about our luxury, our environment. Developing countries, it is clear that the causes lie in the north and the consequences in the South. And in the developed world we realize that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor lifestyle changes are sufficient. The people here in Europe have the preposterous notion, shopping at health food store or electric cars solved the problem. That is arrogant, because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has widened in the last 30 years, despite the organic movement.

They say, for successful climate policy is a high level of international cooperation necessary. Just to see you do not.

I share the skepticism. But we have an alternative? Currently there are three ideas on how to handle the difficult cooperation: It is engaged in unsafe experiments such as geo-engineering, focusing on the development of clean and secure energy, or trusting in regional and local solutions. However, there is no indication that any of these ideas will solve the problem. We need the cooperation so wish, just as you have to work for the regulation of financial markets.


But unlike the financial crisis in climate policy a country has advantages if it does not cooperate.

The financial crisis was an emergency operation - in the face of danger we behave more cooperative. Such a thing is not in the air to give, because it is always questionable whether a specific event such as a flood is a climatic phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one can not solve the climate problem by itself, but it must be networked with other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

In your new book, much of ethics is the question. It plays a role in the climate negotiations?

Ethics always plays a role when it comes to power. China and Latin America, for example, always emphasize the historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change. This responsibility can not be denied, but it is also a strategic argument in the country. I would accept the responsibility for the time since 1995, since then because we know what causes the greenhouse effect. Extend the responsibility to the Industrial Revolution, is not ethically justified.

Can I use the ethics to break the gridlock?

The book contains a parable: A group of hikers, the global community is in the desert. The industrialized nations drink of the water in half and then say generously, "Now we share the rest!" As the others say: empty "So it does not go, you have the water already halfway. We now talk about your times historical responsibility "We think. If we argue only about the water supply, because we can not agree on the ethical principles may be we die of thirst. Look what we have is an oasis that is the carbon-free world economy. It's about the common departure for this oasis.

I hope this is useful. For me, it adds to my belief that there is some doubt about the purposes of those advocating climate change solutions. There is enough doubt in my mind concerning the accuracy of science in this area (Remember the predictions that by 2000 the world would be frozen to death?) that I'm unwilling to give billions of dollars in this area just yet.

As an aside, I am sorry to see threads where the passion rises so high that it comes close to nastiness. Peace to all.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Politicians will be politicians. They try to take advantage of everything, but he's not exactly wrong. Look at it from the point of view of someone who believes that AGW is happening and is going to get worse. Speaking as that person I can say, a carbon tax will not work, regardless of how much sense it makes to do it. The more push there is for a tax the more reluctant the real elite will be to join the consensus and agree we have to do something before it's too late.

That leaves the problem unsolved and in 20-50 years things are probably going to start getting uncomfortable, extreme weather, floods, drought, world food supply, water supply etc etc... When these things start to happen it will be a domino effect, we already are a global economy in every critical way... energy, food and water. That is going to leave the majority of people or sheeple if you prefer, crying for help... who do you think will answer and with how much authority are they going to answer?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

Thanks for the response.

Please correct my thinking if I'm going wrong here, but these are my current thoughts:

We're not sure what causes global warming.
We're not entirely sure how to stop it.
We're not sure if it will stop naturally.
We're not sure how high the temperature wil get.
We're not sure if extra heat (up to a certain level) will be net bad or net good for the planet.
We are sure that currently proposed actions will be very expensive.

With those thoughts in my head it's hard for me to feel passionate about the issue. But I'm very glad you are, it should force people to consider their positions. (As you have forced me to.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Dear Charles

I always enjoy conversing with you to the point where I mimic your writing style at times.
I would like to address a few points in your last post hopefully to clarify a few things.

When you write that we do not know what causes global warming that is not entirely true. We do know what attributes to it the only real question left is what degree does man influence warming and is it enough to tip the scales in an overwhelmingly negative impact. We know that this happens naturally in earth’s history the concern is that our species is causing it to accelerated at a rate where wildlife is incapable of adapting.

You are correct when you write we are not entirely sure how to correct it however what we are not sure of what will be the minimal response needed to slow warming to a acceptable pace. We know that we halted the use of fossil fuels that the Earth should return to its normal cycles. However that is not realistic or acceptable alternative.

You are correct and when you stated that we're not sure how high the temperature will get but what we do know is that it will get to a point where life will be unsustainable in realistic terms for humanity at the current rate. Will it go above that? Just because we do not know the maximum temperature it will go to does not mean that we don't know it will reach a point where life as we know it will become unsustainable.

Your statement about we're not sure if extra heat to a certain level will be net bad or good for the planet. The concern is not whether it will get too hot the question is will it get too hot too fast. Let me give you an example. I regularly travel to Central America each year I just returned last month from my annual dive trip in Honduras. One of the things I love about Utila is the coral reefs however every trip I notice the reefs are dying it is a phenomenon they call bleaching. This has been going on for the past five years that I have been traveling there and the cause has been the accelerated warming of the ocean. What is happening is the oceans are warming too fast for the reefs to adapt. As I said before the Earth does have natural warming and cooling cycles however man has had a negative impact to where the earth right now is warming at an unnatural pace. This is not good for our environment.

Your statement about the proposed actions being expensive may be true in fact I am fairly certain that is true. Let me ask you this: how expensive will it be when the Midwest no longer produces an adequate amount of crops to sustain the populace? Let me ask you a question that is a little easier. Do you think the expense will go down the longer we wait? One of the questions that scientists are trying to answer now is have we already reached a tipping point to where no amount of money can nullify the negative of that we have already imposed on the planet. Some of the articles I have read on this have stated that once we reach a certain point there will be a domino effect with global warming. An example will be the frozen tundra in Alaska and Siberia where methane is trapped underneath. Many reports state that if this methane is released to quickly the Earth's natural ability to process the methane will be exceeded causing further warming and further methane release. Methane is far worse a greenhouse gas than CO2.

I am always happy to converse with you Charles and I am not trying to be an alarmist however I do believe that we are having a negative impact on our planet the only question I have in my mind is what can we do in realistic terms to solve this problem. Below I am attaching a link to a paper on methane release I believe this paper is a worst case scenario and is probably hyped up so taken with a grain of salt it still outlines a very bad possibility which shouldn't be ignored. It is a very real problem that we face but to what degree I do not know. I am not even sure there is anything we can do but what I am sure of is that if we do nothing we can expect bad things in our future.

With respect,
Grim

Wost case scenario

Global Extinction in One Human Lifetime

edit on 1-4-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Dear Grimpachi,

The pleasure is all mine. You are serious and passionate, people ignore you at their peril.

This is a serious subject with masses of information available. Your link to global extinction is a formidable piece of work. I hope you don't mind terribly that I have only skimmed it tonight. (It's one o'clock and I get fuzzy. You know how we old folks are.)

I wonder when people get to the point were they say "Information I can't possibly understand is no information at all?" What decision making tools do we fall back on then? One, unscientific, method I use is the quality of earlier work. I'm afraid I can't get out of my mind the reports that the world would be devastated by global cooling by the year 2000.

But, as I say, I'm just not in shape to give your excellent information the thought it deserves. Tomorrow, perhaps?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


My apologies Charles I am using some new voice recognition software and I am afraid I haven’t trained it enough. I should have reviewed it more thoroughly before posting because some of what was typed was nothing like what I said. It was my mistake and I ask that you forgive my incompetence.

As to your follow up post.

Yes it is a great deal of information which I had to read and reference several times before I could claim that I understood fully. As to the early models of those that claimed an Ice age that was a bit before I became interested in climate change. Some of what I read concerning those claims said that early concern was over pollution be it coal or exhaust. As I understand smog had the effect of blocking out the sun much like how volcanic ash had cause global cooling in earlier ages the hypothesis was that if nothing was done to reduce those emit ions we would experience a mini ice age. That is one theory I have read but as I said I wasn’t learned on the matter then and I haven’t researched it much in present. As you know since that time measures were taken computer models have improved along with methods of collecting data. Ice cores have given us some great insight into our past. The internet age has helped scientists communicate their findings since then as well. The sight I linked to has a wealth of information which I am still going through at a slow pace.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




We're not sure what causes global warming.


We are. Climate changes according to the dominant forcing. The dominant forcing currently is excessive greenhouse gasses causing warming.



We're not entirely sure how to stop it.


Lowering our greenhouse gas emissions would, though it may be too late now to hold to 2C warming.



We're not sure if it will stop naturally.


About the only way to stop it now, naturally is if we go through a period of increased volcanic activity or a large volcano goes off.



We're not sure how high the temperature wil get.


According to AR4


Model-based projections for the future
Model projections are made based on an analysis of various computer climate models running within the different scenarios that were established in 2000 in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (the "SRES scenarios"). As a result, predictions for the 21st century are as shown below.
Surface air warming in the 21st century:
Best estimate for a "low scenario"[12] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[13] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.
A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.
Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases.


wikipedia



We're not sure if extra heat (up to a certain level) will be net bad or net good for the planet.


I think that of course will be subjective, if your desert becomes a tropical paradise, people in the affected area probably won't be crying about global warming, however if your island is swallowed up by rising sea levels and you have to migrate, you might be pretty upset about that.

It isn't the planet that climate science is worried about, anything we do to it short of nuclear annihilation, it will recover from. It's the adjustment of 7 billion people that is the worry, how will we mitigate loss of crop land in one zone with crop land gain in another, water loss with water gain... coastal and island peoples to drier land etc...

Most of anything considered catastrophic though, won't happen in our lifetime though even now I think some south pacific island peoples are having to migrate. If you're a parent though... your children and grand children will be effected.



We are sure that currently proposed actions will be very expensive.


There's lots we can do, lots of little things that people have been demanding to mitigate... things that wouldn't have been too expensive if only... The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become.
edit on 1-4-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

The only thing Climate science claims is that the earth is warming and causing climate change and that Co2 released as a result of human activity is the dominant forcing of that warming.


And more and more former advocates are changing their minds in the face of incontrovertible data.


There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.
...
A denier feels the same righteous sense of certitude now, when warming has stopped, as he did a decade ago. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently opined that “sensible people accept the fact of warming” — but apparently not the fact of no-warming. He scorned those “who manipulate the data in transparently bogus ways to claim that warming has halted or even reversed course.” Does he include James Hansen, the famous NASA scientist, among these dastardly manipulators? No one this side of Al Gore has warned as persistently about global warming as Hansen. He nonetheless admits that “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
...
What is beginning to seem more likely is that the “sensitivity” of the global climate to carbon emissions has been overestimated. If so, the deniers will be the last to admit it.

Meet the New Climate Deniers

With so much "invested" in AGW the new "deniers" will put-down or ignore every study, or person who refuses to drink the holy kool-aid, until someone comes up with a new name for the phenomenon or theory.

jw



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Instead of posting information supporting your stance on climate change you post an article insulting those who have looked at the evidence and concluded that climate change is a problem.

That is not only poor form but also shows that it must be hard for you to find reliable information to support your stance. I believe there is a logical fallacy named after that tactic.

The article you posted states there has been no change in the last 5 years however each year including last a new record overall high was recorded same as the last. It certainly looks like the ones responsible for writing that article either ignored available information or never researched it to begin with.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


If only it were true that the global temperature hasn't continued to rise. I would love for that to be true, but it simply isn't.

Your article contradicts itself lol.


None of this means that the Earth didn't get hotter in the 20th century, or that carbon emissions don’t tend to create a warmer planet, or that warming won’t necessarily begin again.

Read more: www.realclearpolitics.com...


Scientists find missing heat.



And more and more former advocates are changing their minds in the face of incontrovertible data.


Such as?

Not to mention what in your calculations shows that warming isn't increasing by .1-.2 a decade just as predicted?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


you write we are not entirely sure how to correct it however what we are not sure of what will be the minimal response needed to slow warming to a acceptable pace. We know that we halted the use of fossil fuels that the Earth should return to its normal cycles.


Oh, really? Please explain how we "know" this, and what, exactly, are Earth's "normal cycles?"

What makes you think the late 20th Century climate is "normal?" From what I've read, over 4.5 billion years, "normal" is nothing like you assume.


we're not sure how high the temperature will get but what we do know is that it will get to a point where life will be unsustainable in realistic terms for humanity at the current rate.


Here, you equate "humanity" with life; doesn't that leave out the billions of years and overwhelming biomass that does not live on human terms? At what point do you suggest human life "will be unsustanable?" (You may want to consider the people who thrive above the Arctic Circle, and those in the Sahel, before you answer.)


Just because we do not know the maximum temperature it will go to does not mean that we don't know it will reach a point where life as we know it will become unsustainable.


OK, I'll bite. What is that temperature?


Your statement about we're not sure if extra heat to a certain level will be net bad or good for the planet.
... how expensive will it be when the Midwest no longer produces an adequate amount of crops to sustain the populace? Let me ask you a question that is a little easier. Do you think the expense will go down the longer we wait?


Maybe you are too busy listening to the fear-mongers. The rest of the world knows this:Midwest Farmers Looking for Best Crop in Decades

Of course, that doesn't quite fit in with the AGW dogma, does it? Highest CO2 levels EVER, and best crop in decades?
As for "expense," but for speculation and diversion of resources to "biofuels," world grain prices have been going DOWN for decades!

jw



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

an article insulting those who have looked at the evidence


Oh, so using an article is "an insult?"
Using the epithet "denier" is "an insult?"
Reciting facts that do not support you beliefs is "an insult?"

Of course, you realize that it was AGW advocates who adopted the "denier" label to describe those who don;t share their faith, don't you? But it must be admirable in your eyes for those of your faith to use such name calling as a response to non-beleivers!

Maybe you didn't know this, but somewhere on Earth, it is "colder than ever" and "hotter than ever" and "wetter than ever" and "drier than ever" at any given time.
Despite your enamor of the latest "hot" alarmism, how will you explain this to the Finns, Brits, and Germans who have experienced one of the coldest winters ever?

Oh, I know! "Man-made global warming," and "extreme weather" attributable to same, right?

jw





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join