The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[bedowin62]

Did any con accept the challenge and state that climate change is natural and therefore we should not even attempt to slow the process and/or change our habits in anyway because its no point in trying?

what does your idiotic red herring have to do with reality? WE ALEADY ARE doing much to preserve out environment.

global warming is a huge scam for global wealth redistribution

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

We'll leave the looking stupid to you.

You're so good at it.

 

[bedowin62]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

the only one that looks stupid is you. you already know there are dozens of rules and regulations already in effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

Do you accept CO2 as your Savior?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

We'll leave the looking stupid to you.

You're so good at it.

I ask a question you respond with a question. I make a statement and you respond with an insult.

Good, its best not to try to debate someone who is smarter than you so go to your bread and butter, name calling

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

We'll leave the looking stupid to you.

You're so good at it.

I ask a question you respond with a question. I make a statement and you respond with an insult.

Good, its best not to try to debate someone who is smarter than you so go to your bread and butter, name calling

Good advice, you should follow it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

Why do you insist on speaking for folks.. LISTENING is a better way to understand what is being said. OBVIOUSLY, if the current climb in surface temperatures can stall for 15 years, then there are OTHER processes unaccounted for in the models. And there IS NO CONSENSUS on what the temperature will be in 2100? So this is far from settled. And it's always easier to panic and whine than it is to outline a plan..

YOU GOT A POLICY PLAN to do something? There are no REAL alternative energy sources being pursued. And TOO MUCH money will go to Vanuatu for phoney damages and corporate lackeys here in the states. I'm not hot on having the UN alien bar from Star Wars lead us by the nose thru this imagined crisis..

 

[ClosedCaption]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

Why do you insist on speaking for folks.. LISTENING is a better way to understand what is being said. .

Then STFU

 

[Edgetho]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

Why do you insist on speaking for folks.. LISTENING is a better way to understand what is being said. .

Then STFU

 

[Paperman299]

Right now and for the past 15 years or so -- the fire is just smoldering. No significant rise in surface temperature. Now -- I'm not gonna tell you that there might be some global warming trend BURIED under whatever causes explain that pause in temp. rise -- but I AM gonna tell you that the "models" were not worth a shit in PREDICTING IT... A reasonable person with appreciation for math and science would deduce that whatever SUPERPOWERS CO2 is said to have -- SOME OTHER effects are in play and are NOT accounted for. So my position is -- Climate science has jumped the shark with the CO2 fallacy for politcal/economical reasons and is only lately paying attention to some fundamental science of how the Earth distributes, dissapates and stores heat.

And I don't want to derail this thread with a science discussion because it's been allowed to remain in Politics because the discussion was about policy. But there are HUNDREDS of threads in the Enviro forum about each one of these issues in detail. And I'd welcome you to join us there to discuss the "nutters" and "enviro-nuts" and why the science is ANYTHING but settled.

Looking at your RealClimate link in another response of yours, I came to this quote:

Q: What about temperature projections for the future?

A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.

Your assertion that there's "no significant rise in surface temperature" carries less weight when the experts you're quoting disagree with you. And citing an expert's credentials and quoting him, without admitting that his position is actually contrary to your own, is being less straightforward than you could be.

As to the "small" increase, what those experts are also saying is that a global change in temperature does not need to be a large number on the Celsius scale in order to be a drastic force for change. There's just no reasonable disagreement anymore that an artificial and rapid increase in global temperature, following the trend we're experiencing now, will have Bad Consequences for humanity. I agree that the science can still stand to improve (it always can), and that the pause in the temperature increase clearly tells us there's more to be learned (there always is).

But there's simply no substantive science telling us man-made climate change will work out OK, just minor causes for doubt, which are totally negligible when taken together with the mountain of evidence that it won't. And that in a nutshell is why I take the position it's well past being reasonable for the GOP to go on denying man-made climate change and resisting legislation to ameliorate it.

PS I see you've responded to another post of mine, but I think I've made my point here. After all, if westwall doesn't like any of those quantifications of human-driven climate change, there's thousands of others to rebuke his claim. Besides, I think it is time I branched out from the Politics sub-forum...

Marcott contradicted NOTHING that I said. Looking at future projections for 2100 has NOTHING TO DO with the temperatures being flat for the past 15 years. And if you noticed -- the statistical bracket on the predictions for just 80 years out goes from 1.1 to 6.4degC is NOWHERE NEAR "settled science". It's more like reading tea leaves. And NO that bracket isn't largely due to the CO2 scenarios, it's because of the range of ficticious number called Climate Sensitivity.. The magical number that gives CO2 it's superpowers.

You need to show any statement I made that was in conflict with what Marcott said in that interview.. Science orgs are waking up.. There's a general revolt of the membership at AGU because the members want to be consulted on the orgs' GW statement. And one of the prestigious lead labs on GW (Max Planck Institute) is admitting that the understanding of the Climate System has to go to a new level to understand the past 100 years.

It's aint' "settled" by any means.

You keep ending your posts by saying the science isn't "settled," which is odd because I have not once claimed it is. But this is like trying to cast doubt on evolution because we don't have a flawless fossil record. The science around evolution is also not "settled," but we do have enough information that we can agree it happens.

I'm sort of surprised you're insisting that you and Marcott are on the same page. Most of your posts on this thread have been insisting the broad time resolution on paleoclimatological studies casts doubt on the significance of our current global temperature increase. That's in direct opposition to statements like this:

...future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years.

You couldn't even get through a post about how you don't disagree with Marcott without disagreeing with him - you wasted no time calling the modeling studies Marcott used in his study "reading tea leaves." This man is not on your side on this issue, and it's misleading to cite him as part of your argument as if he is.

Anyway, if this is all that's left for us to talk about, I think we're pretty done, honestly. I'll just leave the thread with this to gnaw on, for those others still insisting there is no man-made climate change.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I quoted Marcott on and what he is famous for is the historical proxy record of temperature. And by his own admission -- there is not sufficient resolution in this work (Mann, Marcott, et al) to MAKE the statement that our little spike is "unprecendented" and yet what he does in that one-liner above is to parrot the official work of the folks who are making the predictions today. I cite him because he is HONEST about what his Hockey Stick represents, not because we share the same opinion on FUTURE warming..


BTW --- there's 150 years of science post Darwin and we NOW KNOW that perhaps we shouldn't even be expecting a "flawless fossil record". Darwin actually stated that HIS understanding of evolution was BASED on a flawless fossil record that was yet to be found. But he lacked understanding about the rapidity or the MECHANISMS of DNA mutation. And would have been SHOCKED to see folks produce 60 new species of fruit flies in 10 days via irradiation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looking at your RealClimate link in another response of yours, I came to this quote:



Your assertion that there's "no significant rise in surface temperature" carries less weight when the experts you're quoting disagree with you. And citing an expert's credentials and quoting him, without admitting that his position is actually contrary to your own, is being less straightforward than you could be.

As to the "small" increase, what those experts are also saying is that a global change in temperature does not need to be a large number on the Celsius scale in order to be a drastic force for change. There's just no reasonable disagreement anymore that an artificial and rapid increase in global temperature, following the trend we're experiencing now, will have Bad Consequences for humanity. I agree that the science can still stand to improve (it always can), and that the pause in the temperature increase clearly tells us there's more to be learned (there always is).

But there's simply no substantive science telling us man-made climate change will work out OK, just minor causes for doubt, which are totally negligible when taken together with the mountain of evidence that it won't. And that in a nutshell is why I take the position it's well past being reasonable for the GOP to go on denying man-made climate change and resisting legislation to ameliorate it.

PS I see you've responded to another post of mine, but I think I've made my point here. After all, if westwall doesn't like any of those quantifications of human-driven climate change, there's thousands of others to rebuke his claim. Besides, I think it is time I branched out from the Politics sub-forum...

Marcott contradicted NOTHING that I said. Looking at future projections for 2100 has NOTHING TO DO with the temperatures being flat for the past 15 years. And if you noticed -- the statistical bracket on the predictions for just 80 years out goes from 1.1 to 6.4degC is NOWHERE NEAR "settled science". It's more like reading tea leaves. And NO that bracket isn't largely due to the CO2 scenarios, it's because of the range of ficticious number called Climate Sensitivity.. The magical number that gives CO2 it's superpowers.

You need to show any statement I made that was in conflict with what Marcott said in that interview.. Science orgs are waking up.. There's a general revolt of the membership at AGU because the members want to be consulted on the orgs' GW statement. And one of the prestigious lead labs on GW (Max Planck Institute) is admitting that the understanding of the Climate System has to go to a new level to understand the past 100 years.

It's aint' "settled" by any means.

You keep ending your posts by saying the science isn't "settled," which is odd because I have not once claimed it is. But this is like trying to cast doubt on evolution because we don't have a flawless fossil record. The science around evolution is also not "settled," but we do have enough information that we can agree it happens.

I'm sort of surprised you're insisting that you and Marcott are on the same page. Most of your posts on this thread have been insisting the broad time resolution on paleoclimatological studies casts doubt on the significance of our current global temperature increase. That's in direct opposition to statements like this:

...future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years.

You couldn't even get through a post about how you don't disagree with Marcott without disagreeing with him - you wasted no time calling the modeling studies Marcott used in his study "reading tea leaves." This man is not on your side on this issue, and it's misleading to cite him as part of your argument as if he is.

Anyway, if this is all that's left for us to talk about, I think we're pretty done, honestly. I'll just leave the thread with this to gnaw on, for those others still insisting there is no man-made climate change.

The chart shows that people who make their living from the AGWScam, believe in AGW.

 

[Antares]

I guess thats a no. No one wants to look stupid and just say it out right. Good to know

Why do you insist on speaking for folks.. LISTENING is a better way to understand what is being said. .

Then STFU

Do you honestly think the that this is a winning issue for you?

Do you honesty believe that when the energy price increases hit the average american over this coal bullshit that your side is going to hang on to any political power?

There is no settled science, there is speculation based upon data entered into computer programs, thats it....and it is incomplete data.

You advocate changing our ENTIRE economy based on these silly models.....while decrying the fact that so many Chinese, Pakistani's and third worlder's are about to enter carbon fuel consumption marketplace.

That is stupid.

Make the THEM alter THEIR "projected" usage if it means so much to you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Relativity is Settled Science" and other things no real scientist ever said

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you have a medical condition, do you go see an accountant about it?

If you need help with your tax returns, do you go see a plumber?

If you have questions about climate - you ask a climatologist - not an oil company geologist.

I don't favor bankrupting folks who are already struggling with high energy costs. But at least I don't have to lie to myself and others denying the best science we have on the subject.

 

[Edgetho]

If you have a medical condition, do you go see an accountant about it?

If you need help with your tax returns, do you go see a plumber?

If you have questions about climate - you ask a climatologist - not an oil company geologist.

I don't favor bankrupting folks who are already struggling with high energy costs. But at least I don't have to lie to myself and others denying the best science we have on the subject.

Climatology is a cult. It is a group of WORTHLESS academics who have NOTHING to do but ask for handouts and grants from dimocrap scum so they can push a LIE.

Why not ask a communist about economics? Why not ask Hitler about eugenics?

Plumbers don't come in and demand that you turn over all your plumbing to them. They don't demand that you piss less, they don't demand that you shower less, they don't put a lock and key on your toilet.

If you have a medical condition, your Doctor doesn't break your jaw so you can't over-eat, he doesn't cut your arm off because you have hang nail, he doesn't carve your guts out if you have a bladder infection.

Phony Climatologists are recommending just that.... Phony.

And dimocrap scum are cultists.

LISTEN to this..... It tells you all you need to know about the Climate Change cult

LISTEN AND WATCH IT!! NOW!

Lefty Scientist: Jail Pols Who Deny Global Warming; PBS Host Worries There's Lack of Prison Space | NewsBusters

Have some

 

[Antares]

If you have a medical condition, do you go see an accountant about it?

If you need help with your tax returns, do you go see a plumber?

If you have questions about climate - you ask a climatologist - not an oil company geologist.

I don't favor bankrupting folks who are already struggling with high energy costs. But at least I don't have to lie to myself and others denying the best science we have on the subject.

That's exactly what you are doing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why do you insist on speaking for folks.. LISTENING is a better way to understand what is being said. .

Then STFU

Do you honestly think the that this is a winning issue for you?

No, this is not a winning or losing issue. Its acceptance or denial of science based on feelings.

Do you honesty believe that when the energy price increases hit the average american over this coal bullshit that your side is going to hang on to any political power?

Again when you look at everything thru a polictical partisan lens of course you'll deny science based on feelings and your gut. When you are hammer everything looks like a nail right?

There is no settled science, there is speculation based upon data entered into computer programs, thats it....and it is incomplete data.

What you just said here is you dont know why you are denying the science. You just are just describing how scientists conduct research and pretending its all mumbo jumbo. Scientists are just wacky and what good are computers anyway waka waka

You advocate changing our ENTIRE economy based on these silly models.....while decrying the fact that so many Chinese, Pakistani's and third worlder's are about to enter carbon fuel consumption marketplace.

That is stupid.

Make the THEM alter THEIR "projected" usage if it means so much to you.

1. No I dont advocate for changing entire anything but you have to fight against some sort of made up enemy so go ahead.
2. What other countries do doesnt matter unless you're saying America should follow China and other 3rd world countries in every way. Wait, no you just think that America should follow China in polluting? Wait....you have no point
3. What they do has nothign to do with this. If China changed today you would suddenly change your position....suuuuuuure

 

[nodoginnafight]

Your intuitions don't count here. Your elevation of ideology over science is idiotic.

The government better stop writing flood insurance SOON.

 

[Antares]

Then STFU

Do you honestly think the that this is a winning issue for you?

No, this is not a winning or losing issue. Its acceptance or denial of science based on feelings.



Again when you look at everything thru a polictical partisan lens of course you'll deny science based on feelings and your gut. When you are hammer everything looks like a nail right?

There is no settled science, there is speculation based upon data entered into computer programs, thats it....and it is incomplete data.

What you just said here is you dont know why you are denying the science. You just are just describing how scientists conduct research and pretending its all mumbo jumbo. Scientists are just wacky and what good are computers anyway waka waka

You advocate changing our ENTIRE economy based on these silly models.....while decrying the fact that so many Chinese, Pakistani's and third worlder's are about to enter carbon fuel consumption marketplace.

That is stupid.

Make the THEM alter THEIR "projected" usage if it means so much to you.

1. No I dont advocate for changing entire anything but you have to fight against some sort of made up enemy so go ahead.
2. What other countries do doesnt matter unless you're saying America should follow China and other 3rd world countries in every way. Wait, no you just think that America should follow China in polluting? Wait....you have no point
3. What they do has nothign to do with this. If China changed today you would suddenly change your position....suuuuuuure

A lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

Let's remove you from the equation, your leader advocates changing our way of life.....to fight this percieved menace.

I reject it because it has NOT been proven, you would claim that it has....but that is YOUR article of faith, not mine.

WE, the United States have done enough, **** the rest of the World.
If they are so worried about it let them do something about it.
No more US money, no more US regulations.

The public has and will continue to reject this stupidity not because THEY are stupid, but because they can smell a pig.