The Questions that Global Warming Concerned People have Not Answered in this Forum

[Seymour Flops]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

 

[luiza]

Also there is no info on best Sun Blockers to use on the beach .
Has anybody produced a Factor 100 yet ?
No ?
Suggests that even the Crack Crocks disbelieve their own nonsense

 

[Seymour Flops]

Also there is no info on best Sun Blockers to use on the beach .
Has anybody produced a Factor 100 yet ?
No ?
Suggests that even the Crack Crocks disbelieve their own nonsense

I doubt he gets out much. He’s about my age, so I’m guessing he spent his formative years watching Gilligans Island and solving one side only of his Rubics Cube.

You make a good point about disbelieving their own claims. Their solutions are exactly the same anti-American anti-growth moves that Le left has long advocated. Why would Obama buy an estate on an Island if it is destined to be underwater so soon?

 

[Crick]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

Your questions are not hard. You don't know enough about the issue to formulate hard questions. They are disingenuous

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?

Of course. Everyone here - even a newcomer like you - have seen these data repeatedly. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for_fig1_350979227

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?

Yes, there is evidence. There are no proofs in the natural science. You'd think someone with two masters would understand that point. This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus, your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

9 ways we know humans caused climate change

Scientists have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are the main cause of climate change. Here are 9 ways the evidence stacks up.

www.edf.org

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

A straightforward explanation of how we know that humans cause global warming, using charts, graphs, and plain language.

www.ucsusa.org

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

Causes

Takeaways Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Life on...

climate.nasa.gov

What Is the Evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change?

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Multiple studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree.

scienceexchange.caltech.edu

AND many, many more

3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?

Yes. Reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?

I am not an economist but I believe excellent information regarding this question may be found here:

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AND here

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Again, you and everyone here have been provided these links before. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

There is no singular proposal. This question thus lacks a valid premise. However, the obvious aim of all mitigation measures will be to stop AGW which would then allow the Earth to cool to the temperatures it was experiencing before AGW began: a drop of about 1.3C from current levels. This is completely obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

All of your questions have been answered and what has been most clearly demonstrated is that you LIE.

 

[there4eyeM]

The biggest unanswered question is why so few really care about the sheerly disgusting pollution of every kind on every level, whether or not it increases the temperature of anything.

 

[Votto]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

All we can know is, you need to pay higher taxes, eat bugs, and do what the WEF tells you to do, like drive electric cars and don't have children.

It really is that simple.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your questions are no hard. You don't know enough about the issue to formulate hard questions. They are disingenuous

Of course. Everyone here - even a newcomer like you - have seen these data repeatedly. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE

View attachment 895127

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for_fig1_350979227

View attachment 895128

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus, your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

9 ways we know humans caused climate change

Scientists have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are the main cause of climate change. Here are 9 ways the evidence stacks up.

www.edf.org

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

A straightforward explanation of how we know that humans cause global warming, using charts, graphs, and plain language.

www.ucsusa.org

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

Causes

Takeaways Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Life on...

climate.nasa.gov

What Is the Evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change?

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Multiple studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree.

scienceexchange.caltech.edu

AND many, many more

Yes. Reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

I am not an economist but I believe excellent information regarding this question may be found here:

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AND here

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Again, you and everyone here have been provided these links before. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

There is no singular proposal. This question thus lacks a valid premise. However, the obvious aim of all mitigation measures will be to stop AGW which would then allow the Earth to cool to the temperatures it was experiencing before AGW began: a drop of about 1.3C from current levels. This is completely obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.


All of your questions have been answered and what has been most clearly demonstrated is that you LIE.

I have repeatedly explained to you that posting links as a reading assignment is not an answer to a question, nor is it debate. If you would like to debate, I stand ready anytime.

Would you like to take it a simple step at a time? Start by stating in your own words, whether or not the rise in purported global warming has been steady since the industrial revolution. That could just be a yes or no.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The biggest unanswered question is why so few really care about the sheerly disgusting pollution of every kind on every level, whether or not it increases the temperature of anything.

That would be an excellent thread topic. Unfortunately it is not this thread topic.

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

You moved the goalposts here ... Question 2 is a good one, there is no PROOF ... however at the end you want a basis on EVIDENCE ...

So which is it ... PROOF or EVIDENCE ??? ... because there's plenty of evidence of man-kind causing global warming* ... but that's not scientific proof ... not until the math is settled ... "what's the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and SB's emissivity ratio?" ...

The answer to Question 4 is nothing ... in fact, addressing GW by raising your thermostat in winter SAVES money ... car-pooling and public transportation SAVES even more money ... if you're installing solar panels over a coal seam, you're a moron and shouldn't have money ... but if it's always windy over your Oklahoma cattle ranch, you should install wind mills over your oil pumps because the cattle will feed all around anyway ...

If you pay $75,000 for an EV and are still paying taxes ... you need a better accountant ... that rig is for The Rich, not Middle-Class scum ...

* = Women had no part in this, strictly man's fault ... and I'm not just shamelessly pandering for the woman's vote, but hey, vote Reiny, you won't regret it !!!~ ...

 

[Crick]

I have repeatedly explained to you that posting links as a reading assignment is not an answer to a question, nor is it debate. If you would like to debate, I stand ready anytime.

Would you like to take it a simple step at a time? Start by stating in your own words, whether or not the rise in purported global warming has been steady since the industrial revolution. That could just be a yes or no.

First, you need to address the lies on which you based this thread..

Quite obviously you have no interest in an actual debate here. You lie repeatedly. You demand information you've already been given and then reject it when its provided. There really is no point in talking with you about anything.

 

[ReinyDays]

I doubt he gets out much. He’s about my age, so I’m guessing he spent his formative years watching Gilligans Island and solving one side only of his Rubics Cube.

You make a good point about disbelieving their own claims. Their solutions are exactly the same anti-American anti-growth moves that Le left has long advocated. Why would Obama buy an estate on an Island if it is destined to be underwater so soon?

Do you remember how relieved The Professor was about sea level rise when it turned out it was just Gilligan moving his lobster traps into deeper water? ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

6) Should we waste trillions and harm our economy to cut CO2 a little while
China increases CO2 a lot?

 

[ReinyDays]

6) Should we waste trillions and harm our economy to cut CO2 a little while
China increases CO2 a lot?

How much are you running your air conditioner ... if you don't mind me asking ... for trillions of dollars, I'd weatherize the doors and windows a little ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much are you running your air conditioner ... if you don't mind me asking ... for trillions of dollars, I'd weatherize the doors and windows a little ...

AOC wants to insulate every building in the US, for free!

 

[Seymour Flops]

You moved the goalposts here ... Question 2 is a good one, there is no PROOF ... however at the end you want a basis on EVIDENCE ...

Fair point. I’ll be happy with evidence that could be debated.

So which is it ... PROOF or EVIDENCE ??? ... because there's plenty of evidence of man-kind causing global warming* ... but that's not scientific proof ... not until the math is settled ... "what's the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and SB's emissivity ratio?" ...

I ask for evidence that is not made up.

The answer to Question 4 is nothing ... in fact, addressing GW by raising your thermostat in winter SAVES money ... car-pooling and public transportation SAVES even more money ... if you're installing solar panels over a coal seam, you're a moron and shouldn't have money ... but if it's always windy over your Oklahoma cattle ranch, you should install wind mills over your oil pumps because the cattle will feed all around anyway ...

I think you mean in a hypothetical future in which renewables produce energy more cheaply than fossil fuels.

If that time were here, the free market would have already selected against fossil fuels.

 

[Seymour Flops]

6) Should we waste trillions and harm our economy to cut CO2 a little while
China increases CO2 a lot?

Ooh!

Oooh ooh!

The answer is: NO.

 

[ReinyDays]

AOC wants to insulate every building in the US, for free!

That has been the law of the land since the Nixon Administration ... and we did retrofit many many many buildings during the Reagan Administration ... the guy I worked for did pay 25%, the rest was subsidized by Federal tax dollars ... no, not quite free, and of course property taxes went up ...

Landlords double their own costs and raise rents accordingly ... 100% margins ... but I digress ...

AOC wants a lot of things ... and if she's got a fair way to pay for these nice things, then fine, have at it ... does rooftop solar work in Queens, then Queens' tax dollars should subsidize the installation ... maybe that's cheaper than a new power plant? ... I don't know ...

Here's it's hydro ... and nuisance level mountain-fresh crystal-clean spring-water ...

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you remember how relieved The Professor was about sea level rise when it turned out it was just Gilligan moving his lobster traps into deeper water? ...

I guess that was the one episode of that show that Crick missed.

 

[ReinyDays]

Fair point. I’ll be happy with evidence that could be debated.
I ask for evidence that is not made up.

I'll certainly offer the NOAA data as evidence of average global temperatures have risen 1ºC over the 20th Century average ... if you hunt around that page, you'll find links that take you to where NOAA explains how they come up with these numbers ... essentially using dynamic models in static mode, as computers become more accurate with more FLOPS ...

Trained meteorologists reading thermometers ...

I think you mean in a hypothetical future in which renewables produce energy more cheaply than fossil fuels.
If that time were here, the free market would have already selected against fossil fuels.

That's today ... Bonneville Power Administration ... cheapest electricity in the nation, and 100% renewable ... and the free market selected Washington State to host the aluminum-whore Boeing ...

Hydro is cheap enough to smelt aluminum ... and Bonneville herself is run-of-the-river HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'll certainly offer the NOAA data as evidence of average global temperatures have risen 1ºC over the 20th Century average ... if you hunt around that page, you'll find links that take you to where NOAA explains how they e come up with these numbers ... essentially using dynamic models in static mode, as computers become more accurate with more FLOPS ...

Trained meteorologists reading thermometers ...

My question specified a steady increase. I’m sure are aware of the pause in global warming in 2000. There was no pause in human industrial activity. Alarmist blamed the Chupacabra IIRC, or some other Latin American legend.

That's today ... Bonneville Power Administration ... cheapest electricity in the nation, and 100% renewable ... and the free market selected Washington State to host the aluminum-whore Boeing ...

Then the mission is accomplished!

Then the free market will continue to select in favor of cheap renewables.

Unless . . .

Was there by chance any subsidies or regulations leading to the BPA and the renewables? How much did they cost to provide such benefit to Boeing?

Hydro is cheap enough to smelt aluminum ... and Bonneville herself is run-of-the-river HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Yuck, yuck!