If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

[Orangecat]

Guess what that tells us all?

It tells us all that you’re a MMGW cultist loon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not what is going on.

Spell it out.

 

[Crick]

Right, they just assess studies and use them to promote the AGW theory.

As they are paid millions to do.

So, you're a liar.

I have told no lies. You have repeatedly shown us your blithering ignorance. The IPCC has objectively assessed the published science concerning anthropogenic global warming as tasked them in their fucking charter. It is the SCIENCE that has been conducted over the last forty years that has shown AGW theory to be correct.

Then you have no clue if the costs you propose will be worth the benefits.

Except in the vaguest terms, "trillions", I have proposed no costs. The benefit of solving this problem is that most of us get to keep living our lives as we've been doing. The cost of that solution consistently rises as its application is put off. If you want to read a detailed analysis of that sort of stuff, visit the link I provided you. I can tell by the speed with which you reply that you haven't even looked at their opening page. Now THERE'S a man looking for true knowledge.

NOT

So, by definition you are guessing what you HAVE argued: that the costs of not doing whatever unnamed thing you want done with all my money being more than the costs of NOT doing whatever it is.

I don't give a fuck what you want to do with your money. I've got a sneaking suspicion that you will continue to pay the taxes you owe. That will take care of anything within the normal bounds. Emergencies may require other methodologies. For instance, if the WAIS were to catastrophically collapse and a 20 foot wall of water hit every miles of coastline on the planet, there might be a need for a little more gelt from your wee lockbox. But, you know, fingers crossed.

You're a child to bring my mother into it.

Really? Why? Did I insult her? No, I praised her. I insulted you.

Thanks for playing.

You're quite welcome.

I'm asking if YOU have a problem with Biden increasing fossil fuel production. Apparently it's "kewl" when a Democrat does it?

I'm wondering why YOU have such a poor grasp on reality. Our DEMAND for more energy requires more supply. We are not able to satisfy that demand solely with new alternative energy. We must increase fossil fuel supplies for the immediate future. No one is advocating massive blackouts as a tactic to cut down emissions. It seems you thought we were. That's one of the many reasons you need to improve your choices for information sources.

I have no idea about your links, because you did not post the relevent parts of the article. Which means that you did not read the articles, but are hoping to seem smart by posting links to them.

You claimed that proxy temperature reconstructions were nothing but propaganda. I'm terribly sorry, but there are no peer reviewed studies directly addressing that claim. Instead, I provided you multiple articles discussing the methodology, the accuracy and the reliability of proxy temperature reconstructions.

Pretty pathetic, but not uncommon among AGW alarmists.

Ignorant of you.

Actually, I paid for my own education, including two masters degrees. So your condescencion only makes me laugh.

If your education was supposed to have anything to do with hard science, you got robbed

The generation that treated college as a four to six year vacation, funded by parents or student loan, are the ones that think their "interdisciplinary studies" degrees make them qualified to pretend to understand climate change.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering that I paid for with the GI Bill.

So, again I ask, and you are welcome to look it up since you don't know, what will be the cost to lower the planet's temperature, or to make it stable, neither rising nor falling?

Not my interest and not the topic of this thread. Look it up yourself.

I would have to think it would be enormous, if ever it could be done, since the planet's temperature has never been stable.

I'm sure it will be enormous but it will be less than the cost of doing nothing.

Give me a dollar per degree ratio, since that kind of cost-benefit analysis is how intelligent people make decisions.

Go find it yourself. You've got two masters. It should be a piece of cake.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have told no lies. You have repeatedly shown us your blithering ignorance. The IPCC has objectively assessed the published science concerning anthropogenic global warming as tasked them in their fucking charter. It is the SCIENCE that has been conducted over the last forty years that has shown AGW theory to be correct.

Yet, you cannot show any, just post links and say WTTE of: "read all this and you'll see that I'm right." Really childish.

Except in the vaguest terms, "trillions", I have proposed no costs.

But, you know there will be costs, and you know it will be "trillions." You really need to narrow that down. You're like a used car salesman who keeps talking about how shiny the chrome is and will never name a price.

The benefit of solving this problem is that most of us get to keep living our lives as we've been doing. The cost of that solution consistently rises as its application is put off. If you want to read a detailed analysis of that sort of stuff, visit the link I provided you. I can tell by the speed with which you reply that you haven't even looked at their opening page. Now THERE'S a man looking for true knowledge.

All that is assuming that harmful AGW is happening, which you have not provided evidence of.

I don't give a fuck what you want to do with your money.

You do if you want to take it from me for your own use.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that you will continue to pay the taxes you owe. That will take care of anything within the normal bounds. Emergencies may require other methodologies. For instance, if the WAIS were to catastrophically collapse and a 20 foot wall of water hit every miles of coastline on the planet, there might be a need for a little more gelt from your wee lockbox. But, you know, fingers crossed.

Really? Why? Did I insult her? No, I praised her. I insulted you.

You're quite welcome.

I'm wondering why YOU have such a poor grasp on reality. Our DEMAND for more energy requires more supply. We are not able to satisfy that demand solely with new alternative energy. We must increase fossil fuel supplies for the immediate future. No one is advocating massive blackouts as a tactic to cut down emissions. It seems you thought we were. That's one of the many reasons you need to improve your choices for information sources.

You claimed that proxy temperature reconstructions were nothing but propaganda. I'm terribly sorry, but there are no peer reviewed studies directly addressing that claim. Instead, I provided you multiple articles discussing the methodology, the accuracy and the reliability of proxy temperature reconstructions.

Ignorant of you.

If your education was supposed to have anything to do with hard science, you got robbed

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering that I paid for with the GI Bill.

Not my interest and not the topic of this thread. Look it up yourself.

I'm sure it will be enormous but it will be less than the cost of doing nothing.

Go find it yourself. You've got two masters. It should be a piece of cake.

This gets old.

Just post the relevant parts of the links that you claim prove you right. Posting a bunch of links without doing that is meaninglyss. It's argument from authority, which grownups know is a fallacy. I'll read your excerpts if you can suss them out of the links you apparently haven't read. But I'm not falling for the "read all these links" trick.

Question for you: Why the hostility? Your OP has a very hostile tone, and you've gotten more and more hostile with each poster who has pointed out the flaws in it.

It seems wildly out of proportion with a situation in which people merely disagree with you on a political debate board. Especially since none of the people who disagree with you are trying to control you or take your money. That is the basis of global warming alarmism, to control people's behavior and take their money. But yet, the non-alarmists responses have been much less emotional than yours.

So, what happened in your life to make you so hostile?

 

[Crick]

Yet, you cannot show any, just post links and say WTTE of: "read all this and you'll see that I'm right." Really childish.

What is childish is for you to refuse to read; to complain that my posting clearly supporting links is somehow deceptive.

But, you know there will be costs, and you know it will be "trillions." You really need to narrow that down. You're like a used car salesman who keeps talking about how shiny the chrome is and will never name a price.

No, I do not. I'm an engineer, not an economist. There's no reason you should give my opinion on such matters any weight at all. And that you should demand I produce information about which you have been told I have no expertise only tells me that you are seeking victory rather than knowledge or truth.

All that is assuming that harmful AGW is happening, which you have not provided evidence of.

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and its predecessors in the first through fifth assessment reports contains enormous amounts of thoroughly analyzed evidence.

You do if you want to take it from me for your own use.

My use? I won't be taking a penny from you. That will be the task of our government.

This gets old.

It does.

Just post the relevant parts of the links that you claim prove you right.

As I have stated here dozens of times, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence and the entirety of those links qualifies as evidence.

Posting a bunch of links without doing that is meaninglyss [sic].

Providing links to the willfully ignorant is worthless as you have now repeatedly demonstrated.

It's argument from authority, which grownups know is a fallacy.

Arguments based on actual authorities are NOT fallacies. Now if you wanted to use my opinion about costs with someone else and claim that I was an authority, THAT would be a fallacy. So, since you're a grownup and know such things, why are you demanding that specific information from me?

I'll read your excerpts if you can suss them out of the links you apparently haven't read. But I'm not falling for the "read all these links" trick.

I don't give a shit what you read and what you don't. You've clearly shown that you have no interest in the facts, in the science, in reality. You made up your mind on this topic long before learning any of those things and based it entirely on political irrelevancies.

Question for you: Why the hostility? Your OP has a very hostile tone, and you've gotten more and more hostile with each poster who has pointed out the flaws in it.

Because I have children and grandchildren and I care about the lives they will have in the world we are presenting them.

It seems wildly out of proportion with a situation in which people merely disagree with you on a political debate board.

Perhaps because I am talking about reality and you are not.

Especially since none of the people who disagree with you are trying to control you or take your money.

Your efforts will hurt my children. Do you have any yet?

That is the basis of global warming alarmism, to control people's behavior and take their money.

The people warning you about AGW will not get your money. And what behavior are you concerned about retaining? Using a gas pump?

But yet, the non-alarmists responses have been much less emotional than yours.

They have been filled with misinformation and lies concerning an important topic of public policy that will effect humanity for many decades to come.

So, what happened in your life to make you so hostile?

I came to love the planet and then had children who will live on it. What happened to make you such a willfully ignorant and irresponsible liar?

 

[jc456]

I have told no lies.

sure you have, you promote the phony IPCC report that is full of lies. It isn't scientific, it is a political report used by politicians and media, not scientists.

 

[jc456]

The benefit of solving this problem is that most of us get to keep living our lives as we've been doing.

I've asked you quite a few times what is the problem you're trying to solve? Why can't you post the problem? Again, it makes you a liar.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What is childish is for you to refuse to read; to complain that my posting clearly supporting links is somehow deceptive.

No, I do not. I'm an engineer, not an economist. There's no reason you should give my opinion on such matters any weight at all. And that you should demand I produce information about which you have been told I have no expertise only tells me that you are seeking victory rather than knowledge or truth.

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and its predecessors in the first through fifth assessment reports contains enormous amounts of thoroughly analyzed evidence.

My use? I won't be taking a penny from you. That will be the task of our government.

It does.

As I have stated here dozens of times, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence and the entirety of those links qualifies as evidence.

Providing links to the willfully ignorant is worthless as you have now repeatedly demonstrated.

Arguments based on actual authorities are NOT fallacies. Now if you wanted to use my opinion about costs with someone else and claim that I was an authority, THAT would be a fallacy. So, since you're a grownup and know such things, why are you demanding that specific information from me?

I don't give a shit what you read and what you don't. You've clearly shown that you have no interest in the facts, in the science, in reality. You made up your mind on this topic long before learning any of those things and based it entirely on political irrelevancies.

Because I have children and grandchildren and I care about the lives they will have in the world we are presenting them.

Perhaps because I am talking about reality and you are not.

Your efforts will hurt my children. Do you have any yet?

The people warning you about AGW will not get your money. And what behavior are you concerned about retaining? Using a gas pump?

They have been filled with misinformation and lies concerning an important topic of public policy that will effect humanity for many decades to come.

I came to love the planet and then had children who will live on it. What happened to make you such a willfully ignorant and irresponsible liar?

Let’s cut to the chase:

Describe - in your own words - the best evidence that the Earth is warming, that the warming is more harmful than normal cyclical warming, that the warming is NOT cyclic but caused by human activity, and that some other human activity that you propose will stop this harmful man caused warming.

If any piece of that is missing, your entire policy position is invalidated. Please take your time and give an intelligent answer.

 

[EMH]

Let’s cut to the chase:

Describe - in your own words - the best evidence that the Earth is warming, that the warming is more harmful than normal cyclical warming, that the warming is NOT cyclic but caused by human activity, and that some other human activity that you propose will stop this harmful man caused warming.

If any piece of that is missing, your entire policy position is invalidated. Please take your time and give an intelligent answer.

crock has color fudge charts.

crock has color fudge charts showing ocean rise, but cannot show us one single thing "sinking"

crock has color fudge charts about ocean temp rise, but there is no breakout in canes, and the record decade for canes is still the 1940s...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

crock claims Antarctica is melting, never mind it is covered in 2+ miles of ice that breaks off in the form of icebergs, which are still frozen



Your "normal cyclical warming" is an undefined opportunity for wordsmithing fraud....

There is a cause of Earth climate change, and it is not Co2, the atmosphere, or the Sun....

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[jc456]

Let’s cut to the chase:

Describe - in your own words - the best evidence that the Earth is warming, that the warming is more harmful than normal cyclical warming, that the warming is NOT cyclic but caused by human activity, and that some other human activity that you propose will stop this harmful man caused warming.

If any piece of that is missing, your entire policy position is invalidated. Please take your time and give an intelligent answer.

Ahh man, she won’t answer, that’s a standing question for at least five years

 

[Orangecat]

Spell it out.

That one can’t spell. Axe him yourself.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm sure it will be enormous but it will be less than the cost of doing nothing.

Prove it.

 

[Crick]

Let’s cut to the chase:

Because you can't support an actual conversation with actual references and real science? Got it.

Describe - in your own words - the best evidence that the Earth is warming

Temperature data collected and analyzed by several different organizations, like these

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

that the warming is more harmful than normal cyclical warming

Warming rates.

"The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade."​

Climate Change: Global Temperature.

"During the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth."​

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_02.pdf

So, the current warming rate is 24 TIMES the maximum rate experienced during "normal cyclical warming". THAT is why it is more harmful. We and many systems on the planet simply do not have time to adapt.

that the warming is NOT cyclic but caused by human activity, and that some other human activity that you propose will stop this harmful man caused warming.

The glacial-interglacial cycle is driven my Milankovitch orbital forcing which is then reinforced by feedback from both carbon dioxide and water vapor. As the 24-fold ratio should inform you, Milankovitch cycles, even with that feedback, are incapable of providing the forcing required to produce the warming we've been experiencing. Neither is total solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, albedo changes or any other process examined (which includes every one known) EXCEPT greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. Looked at from the other direction, CO2 and other GHG have increased in the Earth's atmosphere and the warming they will produce is calculable from first principles. That warming matches the observed warming. As to the origin of those greenhouse gases there are two routes: isotopic analysis shows that virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial 280 ppm originated from the combustion of fossil fuels AND a simple bookkeeping analysis of how much fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and a calculation of how much CO2 that would produce match the results of the former analysis.

Got it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because you can't support an actual conversation with actual references and real science? Got it.

Temperature data collected and analyzed by several different organizations, like these

View attachment 892902

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Warming rates.

"The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade."​

Climate Change: Global Temperature.

"During the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth."​

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_02.pdf

So, the current warming rate is 24 TIMES the maximum rate experienced during "normal cyclical warming". THAT is why it is more harmful. We and many systems on the planet simply do not have time to adapt.

The glacial-interglacial cycle is driven my Milankovitch orbital forcing which is then reinforced by feedback from both carbon dioxide and water vapor. As the 24-fold ratio should inform you, Milankovitch cycles, even with that feedback, are incapable of providing the forcing required to produce the warming we've been experiencing. Neither is total solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, albedo changes or any other process examined (which includes every one known) EXCEPT greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. Looked at from the other direction, CO2 and other GHG have increased in the Earth's atmosphere and the warming they will produce is calculable from first principles. That warming matches the observed warming. As to the origin of those greenhouse gases there are two routes: isotopic analysis shows that virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial 280 ppm originated from the combustion of fossil fuels AND a simple bookkeeping analysis of how much fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and a calculation of how much CO2 that would produce match the results of the former analysis.

Got it?

So it is post hoc ergo propter hoc. No experiments to try to falsify by proving the null hypothesis, no attempt to eliminate other possibilities. Just looking at changes and speculating that they are caused by US industry since that is the enemy anyway.

Yes I’ve got it. I knew it already, really, but I wanted to give you a chance.

You left out the part about how your proposed changes in human activity will either reverse or stop increases in global temperatures. I take it it is still “global warming” as far as your concerned?”

What are your proposed changes, anyway? Just stuff like people buying carbon credits?

 

[jc456]

real science?

where? you've never presented any real fking science in any post. The IPCC is not science, it is political. posting graphs with no data sets isn't science. We've been waiting on your sorry ass to present one fact of science and to date, zippola. So spare us your rants.

 

[Crick]

So it is post hoc ergo propter hoc. No experiments, just looking at changes and speculating that they are caused by US industry since that is the enemy anyway.

No. Numerous experiments and studies have verified the greenhouse effect. You attack the science but have provided none of your own.

Yes I’ve got it. I knew it already, really, but I wanted to give you a chance.

I would say that no, you didn't know it, since you reject it out of hand with faulty logic and a complete absence of evidence.

You left out the part about how your proposed changes in human activity will either reverse or stop increases in global temperatures. I take it it is still “global warming as far as your concern?”

I, and almost all of mainstream science, advocate reducing and eventually eliminating GHG emissions. Unfortunately, CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere and even were emissions to cease today, our level would be elevated for many years to come. Technology is being developed to actively pull it from the atmosphere, but I don't know of any such work that promises significant effectiveness. What we CAN do is prevent it from getting much, much worse. That, apparently, doesn't interest you but I chalk that up to your exceptional ignorance on this topic.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No. Numerous experiments and studies have verified the greenhouse effect. You attack the science but have provided none of your own.

I would say that no, you didn't know it, since you reject it out of hand with faulty logic and a complete absence of evidence.

Ad hominem, therefore meaningless.

I, and almost all of mainstream science, advocate reducing and eventually eliminating GHG emissions. Unfortunately, CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere and even were emissions to cease today, our level would be elevated for many years to come. Technology is being developed to actively pull it from the atmosphere, but I don't know of any such work that promises significant effectiveness. What we CAN do is prevent it from getting much, much worse. That, apparently, doesn't interest you but I chalk that up to your exceptional ignorance on this topic.

So, we just wait for the technology to catch up? If that’s all it is, that’s not really an issue. Thought you were going to say we need to pay a whole bunch more taxes and spend it all on some sort of program to reduce carbon and stop the climate from changing.

Or just do like Al Gore and fly around on private jets, but donate money to his own foundation, and claim that he lives a carbon neutral lifestyle. Just so I know where you stand, do you believe that Al Gore lives a carbon neutral lifestyle?

 

[Crick]

Ad hominem, therefore meaningless.

You skipped the actual point: the greenhouse effect has been verified by numerous experiments and studies. Your claim that it is post hoc ergo propter hoc is absolutely false.

So, we just wait for the technology to catch up? If that’s all it is, that’s not really an issue. Thought you were going to say we need to pay a whole bunch more taxes and spend it all on some sort of program to reduce carbon and stop the climate from changing.

I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear. I'm here to tell you the truth.

Or just do like Al Gore and fly around on private jets, but donate money to his own foundation, and claim that he lives a carbon neutral lifestyle. Just so I know where you stand, do you believe that Al Gore lives a carbon neutral lifestyle?

You really don't have the wherewithal for a conversation on this topic. Your nick is well selected Seymour.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You skipped the actual point: the greenhouse effect has been verified by numerous experiments and studies. Your claim that it is post hoc ergo propter hoc is absolutely false.

Describe just one of them.

I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear. I'm here to tell you the truth.

You really don't have the wherewithal for a conversation on this topic. Your nick is well selected Seymour.

More ad hominem, the last gasp of a debate loser.

 

[jc456]

actual point: the greenhouse effect has been verified by numerous

So many you can’t find one! IPCC isn’t evidence