Scientific America Says, "Chill out over climate change"

[longknife]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

 

[IanC]

That is what Lukewarmers such as myself have been saying for decades.

Less than catastrophic warming, a combination of beneficial and detrimental affects, and cheap adaptation rather than draconian measures wasted on a fruitless effort to keep things as they were.

The climate is changing, it always has.

 

[Billy_Bob]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Nice to see the choke hold they have had on publishing by opposing views is dying... The red/blue teams implemented at the EPA have opened a lot of doors to regaining integrity in science. It will take a while before the hard set elitists give up and they might never give up their quest for power.

 

[Old Rocks]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... ever'body talks `bout the weather...

... but nobody does nothin' `bout it."

 

[Syriusly]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

 

[longknife]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

If nothing else, one has to admire your dogged adherence to the mantra of "Humans-caused Climate Change."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

Derange the weather. Yes your side is completely deranged

 

[gtopa1]

The cranks have pushed the global warming scare from the start. Stuff them!!!

Greg

 

[Billy_Bob]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

LOL

Even this article is dripping with fantasy that is only supported by failed models.. The fact they admit it is fantasy is what is refreshing.. They know they have a problem just like an alcoholic, admission is the first step to recovery..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

LOL

Even this article is dripping with fantasy that is only supported by failed models.. The fact they admit it is fantasy is what is refreshing.. They know they have a problem just like an alcoholic, admission is the first step to recovery..

But, the Arctic has been ice free since 2005 and snow is a thing of the past, amiright?

 

[SSDD]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

What a line of bullshit rocks...how much of that tripe do you actually believe, and how much do you spew because your politics demands it of you?

 

[SSDD]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

LOL

Even this article is dripping with fantasy that is only supported by failed models.. The fact they admit it is fantasy is what is refreshing.. They know they have a problem just like an alcoholic, admission is the first step to recovery..

But, the Arctic has been ice free since 2005 and snow is a thing of the past, amiright?

Let the church say AMEN!!!! Can I get a witnesss....all hail gaia, and the wizard of oz...

 

[Syriusly]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

If nothing else, one has to admire your dogged adherence to the mantra of "Humans-caused Climate Change."

If nothing else, one has to note your intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the science behind Human caused climate change.

 

[westwall]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

If nothing else, one has to admire your dogged adherence to the mantra of "Humans-caused Climate Change."

If nothing else, one has to note your intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the science behind Human caused climate change.

Feel free to point out some actual, real, science, and not the failed computer derived fiction you have been hyperventilating about for years.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

 

[Syriusly]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

If nothing else, one has to admire your dogged adherence to the mantra of "Humans-caused Climate Change."

If nothing else, one has to note your intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the science behind Human caused climate change.

Feel free to point out some actual, real, science, and not the failed computer derived fiction you have been hyperventilating about for years.

I am citing the actual- and very article in Scientific American that the OP cited. You may disagree with him- but that is fine- that would just be one more example displaying the intellectual dishonesty of the OP.

 

[westwall]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse? It couldn't possibly be those factors now could it. I suppose you are so ignorant (or dishonest, I'll let you choose) that you probably don't know (or ignore) the fact that some of the very flora of CA REQUIRES wildfires to complete its life cycle.

Were you an honest person that would tell you that wildfire in CA is not just common, but an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the State.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Were you an honest person that would tell you that wildfire in CA is not just common, but an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the State.

Were you an honest person, you would not imply that I that I ever said that wildfire in California is not common, or that it is not an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the state.

Of course wildfire is common- but it is becoming more common, and more importantly- it is becoming bigger and hotter.

Natural wildfires in California and elsewhere are almost always caused by lightening strikes. In natural conditions they generally burn fairly small areas and at relatively low temperatures.

But a large portion of wildfires in California now are not caused by lightening strikes but by human causes- campfires, vehicle exhausts, sparks from lawn mowers, arson.

One of the reasons why fires now burn hotter is because we actively suppressed fires for many years when we should have allowed non-threatening fires to burn- and should have been doing more preventative burns in the winter to reduce brush and forest clutter. The hotter fires cause more damage- are more likely to destroy trees that otherwise would survive and kill even the seeds that normally would germinate.

And I am glad to acknowledge that there has been mismanagement of forests- both of public and private forests.