Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Here's another You tube video that must, at all costs, be avoided by the denial community. And undoubtedly will be.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&sns=em]Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy? - YouTube[/ame]

The truth of the IPCC is so simple and obvious, but the science has been victimized by the politics.

 

[PMZ]

REAL science is NEVER settled.

Define settled. If you mean static, I agree. If you mean something else, what?

I mean what retards mean when they say the science is settled.

What do you mean when you say it?

So, you have no idea what you are trying to say.

As in every field, some thing's are certain and some not.

 

[PMZ]

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

No, to dispute that statement is to reinforce the observation that climatology and climatologists who push that agenda are not dealing with reality or with facts. They are dealing purely in propaganda. There is zero empirical data to support their opinion. All they have are computer models of proven incompetence.

Sceptics on the other hand have the foundation of the scientific method, the principle of uniformitarianism, and of course historical fact to support us.

Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.

 

[PMZ]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

I believe that it is a mistake to say that deniers care at all what scientists think. They don't. What they care about can be precisely stated as imposing their political will on the rest of the world. Science is merely an obstacle to that.

 

[westwall]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Here's another You tube video that must, at all costs, be avoided by the denial community. And undoubtedly will be.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&sns=em]Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy? - YouTube[/ame]

The truth of the IPCC is so simple and obvious, but the science has been victimized by the politics.

What's amusing is the few predictions he made have all failed. There was over 40 minutes of "I told you so" and appeals to authority with nothing actually being said. What a sad, sad, state of affairs in the climatology world....

 

[westwall]

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

No, to dispute that statement is to reinforce the observation that climatology and climatologists who push that agenda are not dealing with reality or with facts. They are dealing purely in propaganda. There is zero empirical data to support their opinion. All they have are computer models of proven incompetence.

Sceptics on the other hand have the foundation of the scientific method, the principle of uniformitarianism, and of course historical fact to support us.

Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.

That's not how science works idiot. You have made a claim, you have to back it up with empirical data. I don't have to disprove anything. You are the one who has to PROOOOVE (sic) your hypothesis.

That's how the null hypothesis system works. You clowns have failed completely so you are trying to rewrite the scientific system....just like Lyshenko did.

Pathetic....

 

[westwall]

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

I believe that it is a mistake to say that deniers care at all what scientists think. They don't. What they care about can be precisely stated as imposing their political will on the rest of the world. Science is merely an obstacle to that.

You are so full of shit I'm amazed you can actually walk. It is YOU and your fellow travelers who are trying to impose political controls on the world to enrich your corporate masters and entrench your political operatives by abrogating the individual rights of the citizens of this planet.

You will fail...

 

[PMZ]

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

 

[westwall]

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

You haven't even demonstrated that there is a "threat" nimrod. CO2 is the foundational building block of ALL life on this planet. Only a fool who wishes to kill all life on this world of ours would try and reduce it. It is a fact that if CO2 atmospheric concentrations are lowered to 200ppm NOTHING GROWS.

 

[PMZ]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Here's another You tube video that must, at all costs, be avoided by the denial community. And undoubtedly will be.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&sns=em]Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy? - YouTube[/ame]

The truth of the IPCC is so simple and obvious, but the science has been victimized by the politics.

What's amusing is the few predictions he made have all failed. There was over 40 minutes of "I told you so" and appeals to authority with nothing actually being said. What a sad, sad, state of affairs in the climatology world....

Can you be specific about predictions that he made in that speech that have failed?

 

[PMZ]

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

You haven't even demonstrated that there is a "threat" nimrod. CO2 is the foundational building block of ALL life on this planet. Only a fool who wishes to kill all life on this world of ours would try and reduce it. It is a fact that if CO2 atmospheric concentrations are lowered to 200ppm NOTHING GROWS.

Show us the science that says that atmospheric GHGs do not warm the planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.

I've never said that doubling CO2 could not warm the atmosphere. You are waiting for something that won't ever happen because MOST skeptics have never said that.

The calculations for increased surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm are pretty trivial.. With some help -- you and your remedial science tutor might be able to handle it.. So in 2050 or whenever we reach 500ppm --- SCIENCE SAYS --- the surface MIGHT warm by 1.2degC from the 1850s.... (assuming there are not higher forcings at work from NATURAL effects or NEGATIVE feedbacks present)

THAT'S what CO2 will do to surface temp.. And THAT is more on the order of settled science than the arrogant and useless ranges of "amplication and feedbacks" that constitute the wishful thinking part of AGW theory..

BTW --- since the CO2 is logarithmic, not linear -- the next doubling after that will take the atmosphere 500 ppm higher --- not a mere 250ppm.

So --- you're done MISREPRESENTING at least MY position here. I ask you NOT to misrepresent it again...

 

[PMZ]

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

I believe that it is a mistake to say that deniers care at all what scientists think. They don't. What they care about can be precisely stated as imposing their political will on the rest of the world. Science is merely an obstacle to that.

You are so full of shit I'm amazed you can actually walk. It is YOU and your fellow travelers who are trying to impose political controls on the world to enrich your corporate masters and entrench your political operatives by abrogating the individual rights of the citizens of this planet.

You will fail...

Why else would you spend all of this political effort trying to discredit proven, certain science and proven competent scientists?

You're either a sheep or a wolf.

 

[westwall]

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

You haven't even demonstrated that there is a "threat" nimrod. CO2 is the foundational building block of ALL life on this planet. Only a fool who wishes to kill all life on this world of ours would try and reduce it. It is a fact that if CO2 atmospheric concentrations are lowered to 200ppm NOTHING GROWS.

Show us the science that says that atmospheric GHGs do not warm the planet.

Show us the science that says GHG's other than water vapor do....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

 

[PMZ]

Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.

I've never said that doubling CO2 could not warm the atmosphere. You are waiting for something that won't ever happen because MOST skeptics have never said that.

The calculations for increased surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm are pretty trivial.. With some help -- you and your remedial science tutor might be able to handle it.. So in 2050 or whenever we reach 500ppm --- SCIENCE SAYS --- the surface MIGHT warm by 1.2degC from the 1850s.... (assuming there are not higher forcings at work from NATURAL effects or NEGATIVE feedbacks present)

THAT'S what CO2 will do to surface temp.. And THAT is more on the order of settled science than the arrogant and useless ranges of "amplication and feedbacks" that constitute the wishful thinking part of AGW theory..

BTW --- since the CO2 is logarithmic, not linear -- the next doubling after that will take the atmosphere 500 ppm higher --- not a mere 250ppm.

So --- you're done MISREPRESENTING at least MY position here. I ask you NOT to misrepresent it again...

So your science new to the debate is to ignore positive feedbacks because you don't like the answer if they are considered.

Politics. Pure power politics. Zero science.

Start with what answer you want then only consider things that support that answer.

You're a complete fraud.

 

[whitehall]

Just for kicks I'd be curious about Dr. Dessler's salary at Tx. A&M. Does he oversee something like a federal grant that funds research for "global warming"studies? No Offense Doc, I'd probably fudge data and predict anything the federal government grant wants me to if it means putting my kids in the best colleges and keeping that Lexus in my gated community garage. If a science is scientifically accepted it should include 100% of scientists. What do the 3% of allegedly accredited (but unfunded?) scientists have to say about Dr. Dessler's hypothesis?

 

[PMZ]

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

 

[PMZ]

You haven't even demonstrated that there is a "threat" nimrod. CO2 is the foundational building block of ALL life on this planet. Only a fool who wishes to kill all life on this world of ours would try and reduce it. It is a fact that if CO2 atmospheric concentrations are lowered to 200ppm NOTHING GROWS.

Show us the science that says that atmospheric GHGs do not warm the planet.

Show us the science that says GHG's other than water vapor do....

GHGs are DEFINED as compounds that absorb longwave EM. DEFINED.

When are you going to stop asking and start showing any evidence at all that of what you want to be true, is?????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

No life in the Carboniferous Period?

You're right, I didn't know that.