Why does SSDD so often require that his opponents repeat explanations he has been presented with on multiple occasions? Is he unteachable or is it that he hopes others won't recall his argument's past refutations.
Obviously man had no influence on climate changes in the distant past. Where ever did you get the idea that indicates he cannot change it now?
Changes as rapid as those we are currently undergoing are NOT normal. They have not happened in all of human history. They will be very difficult to deal with.
Yes. On a geological time scale, human history isn't that long. Homo Sapiens appeared only 200,000 years ago and, of course, humans built enough infrastructure to make themselves vulnerable to rapid climate change only in the last few centuries.
Got any actual evidence or just proxy data which lacks the resolution to support such a claim?
Proxy data IS evidence, numb nuts. And the proxy data, in the Holocene at least, has sufficient resolution that it is certain a recreation of the current parameters has not occurred in that time frame. The record in the more distant past is equally informative because it shows that the major periods of elevated temperature and CO2 took geological spans of time to build - well within the chronological resolution of those records. The existing data precludes rapid spikes because is accurately shows such changes took place with glacial slowness.
There is nothing whatsoever going on in today's climate that is outside, or even getting close to the boundaries of natural variability.
I'm sorry, SID, but if you want to claim the paleo record lacks sufficient chronological resolution to inform us as needed, then you cannot claim to know the boundaries of natural variability.
Again...Got any actual evidence that can separate a human fingerprint from natural variation?
We have isotopic analysis. The CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of coal and oil. It is ours.
...got anything like empirical evidence to support the claim of a particular climate sensitivity to CO2 that would be required to separate natural variation from a human fingerprint.
Climate sensitivity is calculated in a variety of manners and such efforts have produced a range of values. What makes you think that a "particular climate sensitivity value is required to identify anthropogenicity?
..can you state empirically that we know all natural variables that effect the climate and to what degree they do so which would also be required to identify and tease out a human fingerprint from the noise?
Can you not understand how fundamentally ignorant is that demand? It is a good example of why proofs are not used in the natural sciences.
So, if you have enough brain to accept that it is warming at an unusually high rate,
Upon what do you base your claim of an unusually high rate? Again, what proxy data do you have that has the resolution required to make and support such a claim?
Shakun and Marcotte's data from the Holocene have more than enough resolution to rule out the possibility that conditions such as we are experiencing today could take place and then vanish within the narrow window required to make such an occurrence invisible.
that this warming will cause us several different kinds of harm
You claim that warning us going to cause harm and cause it in several varieties, but you can't state with any certainty what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? And if you can't state with any real certainty, upon what do you base your claim of harm?
Our first evidence of harm is that such ignorance should be raised in its defense. It is not the absolute temperatures that represent great danger, it is the rate of change.
and that this warming is due to our activity,
Back to the real question...is it due to our activity?
Yes, it is.
Is the present climate outside the bounds of natural variability?
By every measure, it is. But even were it not, the evidence tells us that we are responsible, that it will harm us and that it is possible for us to mitigate that harm. There is nothing intrinsically harmless about the natural range of variability. Volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and forest fires all take place naturally. Does that mean we should not avoid them if possible? Your argument is, as usual, logically flawed.
What proxy data do you possess that has sufficient resolution to make and support such a claim?
Asked and answered.
Can you state precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is?
You cannot explain why a precise value is required for the purposes of this argument.
Can you state empirically and support the claim that you are aware of every climate variable, how much they effect the climate, and how much they effect each other?
You've just taken the shotgun approach. It's a good indication that you don't have a meaningful argument here. This is the second time you've demanded that I "state empirically" a claim of omniscience. So, this is the second time you've demonstrated your ignorance of natural science and some very weak logic.
Such knowledge would be required if one were actually going to tease out an anthropogenic fingerprint from all the climate noise.
No, it is not. This is a commonplace argument made by poor debaters with weak to no arguments. You demand omniscience from your opponent before any action is justified. Such a position fails on all grounds.
You claim it is due to our activity but the fact is that you don't have anything like enough information to actually support such a claim.
And, of course, you will be the arbiter of what constitutes "enough information". Not surprisingly, it seems to be far more than was required to convince all the actual experts in the field.
why the **** would you not want to act - to modify our behavior - to ameliorate the problem?
First, since you can not begin to support the claim that the present temperature is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth
I have never made such a claim.
your claim that there is a problem is specious at the very least.
My claim - the claim of the experts - isn't the least bit specious. The danger, as you've been told repeatedly, is the rate of change. That you continually return to specious arguments about absolute temperature values tells me that you have no response to that statement of fact.
more accurately, I would call it fear mongering of the worst sort.
Warning the public of a real danger is not "fear mongering". It is our duty. Attempting to convince the public, in the face of overwhelming evidence and an extremely strong consensus among the experts, that no danger exists, is gross irresponsibility.
And how much will it cost to act?
Far, far less than it will cost to fail to do so.
How much actual change in the climate do you believe ( and I say believe because it is clear that you don't have nearly enough data to make even an educated guess) this change in behavior will cause? Does the benefit to cost ratio of this change warrant making the change and upon what do you base your claim?
This argument is specious
The real question is that considering how little we know about the climate and what drives it.
"How little we know", are weasel words. Having been studied intensely for several decades now, we know more than enough to be extremely confident that AGW is valid and needs to be addressed.
.why would we make such an expensive change which would have questionable effect and tremendous costs when we can't even say what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is relative to the present temperature...we can say that we know beyond doubt that colder is not better...and history has shown us that civilizations bloomed during periods that were warmer than the present. Upon what actual facts, and empirical evidence do you base your handwaving claims that we need to act, and act now in regards to global climate.....especially when we face real environmental problems that could be addressed with the money that you are talking about spending on climate?
Because we care about our children and the quality of human life on this planet.
